Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Caledonian Power Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [8th March] to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many single men in West Lothian have had their unemployment assistance allowances reduced below the county relief scale of 17s. per week; and whether he will cause that figure at least to be restored and maintained?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I assume that the hon. Member refers to single men living otherwise than as members of households. I am informed by the Board that up to 25th March not more than 10 such applicants in West Lothian had had their allowances reduced from 17s. to 15s. These reductions were made under the statutory Regulations providing for the transition from the Standstill and in accordance with the

recommendations of the local advisory committee. It is always open to an aggrieved applicant to exercise his right of appeal to the appeal tribunal, but the matter is not one in which I have any authority to intervene.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not possible for the Minister to indicate that complaints are being made about the county scale—a scale established by a not too wealthy local authority—being broken by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: It is a matter for the local advisory committee. If the hon. Member can tell me of any particular case I will take up the matter with the Board.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour the number of increases and decreases of unemployment allowances which have been made to persons in West Lothian, including those served by the Edinburgh area office, under the unemployment assistance regulations, dated July, 1936?

Mr. Brown: I regret that separate information relating to applicants living in West Lothian but served by the board's area office at Edinburgh is not available. In the board's administrative area of Bathgate, which covers the greater part of the county, the number of persons whose assessments in December, 1936, when all cases had been reviewed under the new Regulations, were greater than they would have been under Standstill arrangements was about 300. In the same area the number of applicants at the end of January last who were receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings was 123.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board are requiring applicants for allowances to produce documentary evidence that they have sought employment; and under what authority are such officers acting?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the board that after consideration by a local advisory committee applicants in a few exceptional cases have been asked to show what they were doing to obtain work. These were cases involving consideration of action under Section 40 of


the Act which contains provisions with respect to applicants who fail to avail themselves of opportunities for employment.

Mr. Ridley: Is this not a return to the old "genuinely seeking work" provision?

Mr. Brown: Not at all. This is a small type of special case. It was clearly understood by the House when it passed Section 40.

Mr. Kelly: Will the Minister see that this is not proceeded with, in view of the difficulty of obtaining documentary evidence from firms?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of applications to the Unemployment Assistance Board in respect of the waiting period only, and the number of such cases in which allowances were granted?

Mr. Brown: From 1st April, 1937, to 18th March, 1938, the number of applications in respect of the waiting period only was 119,080. In 85,841 cases allowances were granted.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour particulars of the number of persons who have been directly found employment under any Government schemes during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what has been the nature of such employment?

Mr. E. Brown: The policy successfully followed by the Government has been to promote employment by more general measures for the improvement of trade and industry and not by schemes for direct employment, which past experience has shown to be costly and ineffective.

BURY.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Minister of Labour whether the increase of unemployment in the town of Bury, Lancashire, was in the textile trade alone; and will he give the reduction in the number of hands employed in bleach works over the last five years?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply is long and includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The greater part of the increase in unemployment in recent months at Bury has occurred in the cotton and textile bleaching, printing, dyeing, etc., industries. The following table gives the numbers of insured persons, aged 16–64, in the principal industries recorded as unemployed at the Bury Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau at 13th September, 1937, and 14th February, 1938:


Industry.
13th September, 1937.
14th February, 1938.


Building
155
263


Cotton
387
1,160


Textile Bleaching, Printing, Dyeing, etc.
428
719


Distributive Trades
223
294


Local Government Service.
170
205


Boots, Shoes, Slippers, etc.
132
268


General Engineering, etc.
87
131


Paper and Paper Board
62
123


Hats and Caps
120
66


All other industries and services.
561
782


Total
2,325
4,011

The following table gives for the textile bleaching, printing, dyeing, etc., industry at Bury the numbers of insured persons, aged 16–64, at July, 1932, and July, 1937, and the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed in the same months, together with the corresponding unemployment figures for 14th February, 1938:


—
July, 1932.
July, 1937.
February, 1938.


Estimated numbers insured, aged 16–64.
2,350
2,180
Not available.


Numbers recorded as unemployed.
740
403
719


Difference
1,610
1,777
—

VOLUNTARY TRAINING CAMPS.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board are bringing pressure to bear on applicants for allowances by attempting to persuade them to proceed to voluntary training camps by an intimation that their


allowances may be discontinued if they refuse; and under what authority these officers are acting?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that they are not aware of any instances which would justify the suggestion contained in the question.

Mr. Ridley: Have any instructions been given that this should be of a voluntary character; and will the Minister remind officers that men should be free to go or not, as they wish, to these camps?

Mr. Brown: I have had inquiry made and the Board tell me they are not aware of any instance to justify the suggestion in this question. If the hon. Member has any evidence I shall be glad to look at it.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Labour the countries where statutory effect has already been given, or is in process of being given, to the provision of annual holidays with pay for manual workers?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having this information collected, and will circulate a reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT in due course.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satised that a complete investigation is made of all suspected cases of silicosis; and whether it is the intention of the Government to consider the need for an extension of workmen's compensation to all cases wherever contracted in industry?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The Home Office has always recognised the importance of taking special steps to ensure that no process likely to give rise to silicosis is overlooked, and it is the practice of the medical inspectors of factories to make careful inquiries into cases of suspected silicosis alleged to be due to any process not now covered by a compensation scheme. If evidence were forthcoming to show that the disease is

being contracted in some process not already covered, my right hon. Friend would certainly consider a prompt extension of the scheme.

Mr. Muff: Will the Minister instruct all local authorities to make X-ray examinations in suspected cases and make a suitable grant for this purpose?

Mr. E. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that it is most difficult to diagnose some of these cases? There have been two cases in my division, in which death was attributed to pneumonia, but, owing to the coroner deciding to have a post-mortem examination, it was afterwards diagnosed as being due to silicosis. Will he reconsider this in view of other evidence?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider any further evidence.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken to carry out the promises made during the debates on the Factories Bill to the hon. Member for Stoke in relation to silicosis; and what action has been taken since the Factories Act, 1937, became an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Lloyd: Since my reply to the hon. Member's question on 2nd December last, the question of extending the arrangements for periodic medical examination to additional processes in the pottery industry has been under further consideration in consultation with representatives of the employers and workers. Both sides have made suggestions which involve difficult issues, and my right hon. Friend is now considering what should be the next step.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he has given or will give reconsideration to his reply made to the Trades Union Congress, who asked that the functions of the Silicosis Medical Board should be extended?

Mr. Lloyd: The letter to which the hon. Member refers explained the present arrangements for investigating suspected cases of silicosis; and for the reasons indicated in the letter the arrangements are in my right hon. Friend's view more appropriate and effective for the purpose in view than the suggested extension of the functions of the Medical Board.

Mr. Muff: Is not an X-ray examination much to be preferred to a post-mortem examination?

Mr. Lloyd: It is possible under the present arrangements for the local inspector of factories to ask for an X-ray examination.

Mr. E. Smith: If further evidence can be produced to show that the functions of the Silicosis Medical Board are too limited, will the Under-Secretary draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the need for giving them further powers?

Mr. Lloyd: We are in correspondence at the moment with the Trades Union Congress.

UNREGULATED OCCUPATIONS (YOUNG PERSONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now arrived at a decision relative to the conditions of employment of young persons in unregulated occupations; and, if so, whether he intends to promote legislation to deal with this problem?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir. It is intended to introduce a Bill with a view to its being passed into law this Session.

Mr. Day: Will that include young persons in cinemas?

Sir S. Hoare: The Bill will be based generally on the report of the Departmental Committee on Unregulated Occupations.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment; and, if so, whether he intends to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of that committee?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to implement the recent report on corporal punishment?

Sir S. Hoare: The report will in due course receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be in a position to make a statement?

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid I cannot, to-day.

CHILD ADOPTION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether consideration has yet been given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Adoption; what recommendations have been accepted by the Government; and what steps have been or are being taken to give effect to them?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) on 9th February.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING).

Miss Ward: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the hardships imposed on the small shopkeepers by the operation of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Act, he will make immediate investigations into the operation of the Act with a view to taking steps to remedy grievances?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend sympathises with the position of the small traders, and he will, of course, always be ready to consider any representations which may be made on their behalf. At the same time, he feels bound to point out that it is difficult, in legislation of this character, to introduce any discrimination in favour of a particular type of shop, as against other shops selling the same commodities. He would point out also that, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, shops may be open on Sunday without restriction for the sale of a wide variety of articles, and that the local authorities have certain powers to make orders allowing the sale of some non-exempted commodities within certain limits.

Miss Ward: Am I to understand from that answer that my hon. Friend is aware of the grievance of the small shopkeeper? If I am not to have an answer to that question, may I ask whether it is the policy of a powerful Government to


know that grievances exist and not take any steps to remedy them? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Lloyd: I must point out to the hon. Lady that the Home Office is receiving representations on both sides on the matter.

Miss Ward: If my hon. Friend is satisfied that there is a grievance, will steps be taken to remedy it?

AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Turton: asked the Home Secretary how many persons of Austrian nationality have been permitted to enter Great Britain since 1st March, 1938; and how many have been refused entry since that date?

Sir S. Hoare: During the period 1st March to 29th March inclusive 1,317 Austrians were given leave to land and 61 were refused.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend able to state whether the proportion refused entry is greater or less than the normal proportion?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I could not state that, but I can say that only one Austrian has been refused leave to land since my previous statement to the House.

HIGHWAYS ACT, 1835 (FILM ACTING).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary particulars of any records in his possession of proceedings taken in the Metropolitan Police Area against persons under Section 27 of the Highways Act, 1835, for film acting on the public highways?

Sir S. Hoare: I presume the hon. Member refers to Section 72 of the Highways Act, 1835. I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Day: In view of the fact that the Cinematograph Films Act has just been passed, will the Minister consider giving permission for this to be done?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I have told the hon. Member that the information is not available.

Mr. Day: Is it not a fact that there have been several prosecutions?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons who have, over the whole country up to date, enrolled in the various voluntary air-raid precaution services; and what is the total number required?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hen. Friend is arranging to obtain periodical returns of the progress of the enrolment of personnel for air-raid precautions services, but he is not yet in a position to give the particulars for which my hon. Friend asks in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the number may be put at approximately 1,000,000.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether any uniform conditions of enrolment for air-raid wardens have been approved by his Department; if so, whether all local authorities have been instructed to conform to these uniform conditions; if not, whether every local authority is devising its own conditions of enrolment; and whether the conditions of enrolment imply any sort of contract on the part of the volunteer personnel to undertake certain duties either in connection with training or in the event of an emergency?

Mr. Lloyd: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The duties of an air-raid warden would be the same in every part of the country, and those who volunteer for this service will require certain training in time of peace. There is no question of a volunteer entering into any binding contract on enrolment.

Mr. Mabane: Do I understand, therefore, it is taken as certain that the volunteer who enrols will present himself for duty if required to do so?

Mr. Lloyd: We rely upon his being a real volunteer.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary how many of the 2,000 local authorities concerned have, at the present time, storage accommodation for gasmasks complete, ready and available for use; how many gas-masks of civilian pattern, apart from samples, have been distributed from the Government regional stores to the local authorities for storage; and whether, in the event of an emergency and in default of their distribution,


there is any means whereby the gasmasks could be distributed directly from the Government's regional stores to the civilian population?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Home Secretary whether regional stores for gas-masks have yet been established and stocked; and by what method, and in what circumstances, are the gas-masks to be distributed to the population?

Mr. Lloyd: No local authorities yet have storage accommodation ready for use, but schemes are being prepared by them which will include the provision of this accommodation and will give particulars of the respirators required (such particulars having been obtained by house-to-house census) in the areas for which the local authorities are responsible. In the event of an emergency arising before the local storage accommodation is in use, respirators would be sent from the regional stores to the local authorities for distribution.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether any instructions have been given to local authorities that it is proper for them to make arrangements to meet the necessary out-of-pocket expenses of voluntary air-raid precautions personnel; whether he is aware that in many cases not even travelling expenses are being met and that, in consequence, volunteers have to walk several miles to and from the training centres to perform their duties; and whether he will take immediate steps to remove this discouragement to the recruitment of air-raid precautions personnel?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that local authorities generally are unaware that the reasonable travelling expenses of volunteers attending for training may properly be defrayed by local authorities as part of their air-aid precautions expenditure, but in view of what my hon. Friend says, I am arranging for the Department's regional inspectors to notify local authorities who may be in doubt.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Is this being done in conjunction with the Scottish Office, so that the same procedure will be followed in Scotland?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bull: asked the Home Secretary whether any local authorities have yet

completed any bomb-proof shelters for the civilian population; and, if so, how many such shelters have been completed and where?

Mr. Lloyd: In my right hon. Friend's view it would be premature, and indeed misleading, to attempt to give any figures about public shelters which have been specially provided by local authorities. The circular which was issued on 28th March indicated that the first step should be a survey of existing accommodation which could be made available to the public, and until that survey is completed it will be impossible to judge the extent to which special construction can be considered.

Sir Percy Harris: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time for collecting information has gone by, and that the time for action has come? Over a year has been alowed to elapse while inquiry has been made, and the country desires that more active steps should be taken.

Mr. Lloyd: I am just as anxious as the hon. Baronet that action should be taken, but perhaps I may point out to him that the Act was passed just before Christmas.

Mr. Shinwell: When does the hon. Gentleman expect the survey to be completed?

Mr. Lloyd: The survey will have to be carried out by all local authorities, and we are pressing them to carry out this duty with the utmost speed.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Members in this House have already made up their minds what to do if this happens? I know what I am going to do. I am going to stop indoors.

Mr. Bull: asked the Home Secretary how many local authorities have yet provided permanent and, in the view of his Department, adequate training accommodation for voluntary air-raid precautions personnel?

Mr. Lloyd: Training is proceeding actively in most areas, and many local authorities will no doubt be able to carry out this training in existing accommodation at their disposal. The adequacy of such accommodation depends upon the rate of enrolment of volunteers in each area, and numbers of authorities are


taking additional accommodation and will be submitting their expenditure for this purpose for approval under the Act.

Captain Cobb: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether air-raid wardens are entitled to receive the air-raid warden's badge on completion of one month's training; and, if so, how many of these badges have actually been distributed by local authorities to air-raid wardens;
(2) how many air-raid warden's badges have been manufactured and are in the possession of his Department; and how many have been distributed to local authorities?

Mr. Lloyd: A quarter of a million badges and 50,000 brooches have been manufactured, of which 110,000 badges and 35,000 brooches have been despatched to local authorities for distribution, leaving 140,000 badges and 15,000 brooches in the custody of the Department. Badges and brooches are given at the discretion of the local authority to volunteers who have completed one month's service and are considered efficient in their duties. The latest available returns indicate that 5,367 badges and 1,162 brooches have been so distributed, of which 1,987 were badges for wardens.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether the gas masks supplied for the training of air-raid wardens in Warwickshire are similar in all respects to those which are being stored for distribution in the event of emergency?

Mr. Lloyd: The service respirator is being used to some extent in Warwickshire for the training of air-raid wardens as a matter of local convenience. This type is not the one that is being stored for the civilian population, but it is one of the two types that will be issued as service equipment for Air-Raid Precautions Service.

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large number of persons who desire to be trained in air-raid precautionary work and the very limited facilities now available for such training, he will take steps to encourage the provision of courses by independent persons taking pupils on a paying basis?

Mr. Lloyd: The qualifications for instructors are laid down in memoranda

issued by the Home Office, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that official recognition could properly be given only to instructors so qualified. The responsibility for making arrangements for giving instruction and advice to the public with regard to air-raid precautions is by Statute placed upon the local authorities, who are in many cases setting up their own training schools. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend would not think it right to authorise courses being set up by independent persons on a fee-paying basis for this service.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to introduce legislation, similar to that in force in other countries, designed to ensure that new buildings shall be so constructed as to minimise air-raid dangers?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on 24th March.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that in the air-raid precautions circular of 28th March the local authorities have been told that they need not prepare schemes for evacuation until so directed by him, how soon he expects to be in a position to issue such directions to the authorities concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has this subject under examination, but he is not yet able to say when he will be in a position to consult the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Sandys: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that this circular represents no departure from the Government's attitude towards the question of evacuation as outlined by the Home Secretary in the Committee stage of the Air-Raid Precautions Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Home Office considering the question of having a very early experiment of evacuation?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a very important subject which requires to be considered in the light of the schemes brought forward by the local authorities.

Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Member realise that the local authorities will require a very considerable amount of time to put any scheme into operation, and that therefore, time is the essence of this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: It is urgent that they should press on with the work on which they are at present engaged.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that the local authorities have been instructed to lodge their schemes with the Home Office?

Mr. Lloyd: They have been told that there is a certain central responsibility.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to protect against air-raid those persons who live in houses the strengthening or adaptation of which to provide any reasonable degree of protection is impracticable?

Mr. Lloyd: It is one of the duties of local authorities to provide such shelters for the protection of the public as may be necessary. The circular which was issued on 28th March gives guidance to local authorities on this matter.

Mr. Sandys: Is my hon. Friend aware that the circular does not give guidance on this particular point, and does he mean by his answer that people will not be expected to remain in houses which do not afford any sort of protection against the effects of blast?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. This subject is mentioned in specific terms in the circular.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken to provide hospital accommodation for serious air-raid casualties in London and other large towns?

Mr. Lloyd: A survey of hospital accommodation generally is now being conducted by the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland in cooperation with medical officers of health. As soon as that survey is completed my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to advise local authorities as to the steps they should take to provide accommodation for serious casualties.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Home Secretary which London boroughs have not yet appointed full-time salaried air-raid precautions officers?

Mr. Lloyd: In some boroughs either existing officers have been seconded or special appointments have been made, while in two boroughs honorary organisers have been appointed. In the remaining boroughs, 13 in number, no officer has been seconded or specially appointed, but the town clerk is charged directly with the work of organisation. I will send my hon. Friend a list of the 13 boroughs in question.

Mr. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the provisions which he has outlined are satisfactory, and does he not think that each borough ought to have a whole-time man in charge?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not possible to say whether any scheme is the right one in all circumstances, because they may differ. In certain circumstances the town clerk, with the prestige of his office, may be the best man to be in general charge.

Mr. R. Gibson: From what bodies are the officers seconded?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say without notice.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the public utility authorities generally are proceeding to take proper precautions against air raids, or whether such precautions are being delayed pending financial arrangements with the Government?

Mr. Lloyd: A large number of public utility undertakings have already made progress with schemes for the protection of their plant and personnel on the same lines as other employers. The additional works contemplated by my right hon. Friend in his statement of 23rd December are under examination by technical committees representing some of the public utility services and negotiations with regard to the basis of financial assistance for such additional works will begin next week.

Mr. H. G. Williams: How long will it be before a final decision is arrived at, so that people can get on with the job?

Mr. Lloyd: They are in certain cases getting on with it.

Mr. Williams: I mean before certain major decisions can be arrived at.

Mr. Lloyd: Negotiations are in progress.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the importance of the questions and answers on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman make some representations to the responsible officers to acquaint themselves with these questions and answers by purchasing the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the local authorities are aware of the importance of that.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue, in the form of a White Paper, the terms of his further instructions of 28th March to local authorities concerning air-raid precautions schemes?

Mr. Lloyd: The circular and accompanying documents to which my hon. Friend refers have been issued and put on sale. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Home Secretary whether, as appointments for air-raid precautions officers have to be recommended by approved bodies to local government authorities, he will consider the advisability of appointing the British Legion as an approved body to recommend ex-service officers and men as air-raid precautions officers in view of their suitability by past experience for the work?

Mr. Lloyd: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The appointment of such officers is within the discretion of local authorities and there is no requirement that they should be recommended by approved bodies.

Mr. Thorne: As the local authorities are going to appoint some of these officers, will the Home Office pay anything towards the expenses?

Mr. Lloyd: Under the terms of the Act, it would rank as approved expenditure.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Home Secretary whether plans are being prepared for the evacuation of children from the larger and more vulnerable cities in the event of war?

Mr. Lloyd: The arrangements to be made as regards children under air-raid conditions are under consideration by local education authorities in the light of a circular letter issued by the Board of Education on 3rd January.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to securing the adequate defence and protection of the civilian population in the United Kingdom from the effects of air-bombing, he will consider appointing a Minister whose sole duty and responsibility will be related to air-raid precautions, including the provision of air-raid shelters, both public and private?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 7th February last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Mr. Denville: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the intention of certain local authorities to rate air-raid shelters; and whether he will consider, if it be necessary, the introduction of legislation to prevent any such imposition?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not at present aware of any necessity for the introduction of legislation to deal with this matter.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health what was the purpose of the recent survey of voluntary hospitals carried out by his Department; whether the information is being collected as part of the air-raid precautions scheme; and whether it will be communicated to the local authorities?

Sir K. Wood: The survey, which is not limited to voluntary hospitals, has been undertaken with a view to making the fullest use of the existing hospital facilities, and extending them if necessary in a national emergency. The results of the survey will in due course be a matter for discussion with the local authorities.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the local authorities are having difficulties because they find themselves unable to complete the ambulance part of their air-raid precautions until they are able to say definitely which hospitals they will be able to use?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform me of those local authorities, and I will have special regard to their cases.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will provision be made for these hospitals to have additional staffs seeing that at the present time they cannot serve their own populations?

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to introduce and pass into law during the present Parliament any measure of voting reform for application at the next General Election?

Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Member has in mind some change in the Parliamentary franchise, the introduction of such legislation is not in contemplation.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that nothing has happened as a result of the recommendations of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Lord Ullswater?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would any reform of this kind have any effect on the hopes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway?

BANNED CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Home Secretary how many certificates have been granted by the London County Council for the exhibition of films which had been banned by the censor during the past two years; and how many cinemas exhibited these films?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that there have been nine such cases since 1st April, 1936. I have no information as to the actual number of cinemas at which the films in question were exhibited, but so far as I am aware it is a very limited one.

Mr. Williams: Are we to understand that such films are exhibited exclusively at some special cinemas in London or are they exhibited in other places outside London?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no information other than that which I have given to the hon. Member. This is entirely a matter for the London County Council, which is the authority for this purpose.

Mr. Williams: Does the Censor's Department follow these films in order to see

exactly how frequently they are shown, and where they are shown, after the Censor has banned them?

Sir S. Hoare: As I say, this is the responsibility of the London County Council, and I have no reason to believe there is any ground for any complaint against the administration of the Council.

Mr. Day: Is it not the case that they are seen by the representatives of the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils at the same time?

MEETINGS, STRATFORD (POLICE).

Mr. Groves: asked the Home Secretary the number of police on duty in plain clothes at a meeting held in Stratford Town Hall on Monday, 28th March; who requisitioned them and why; and the number of extra uniformed police on duty in the vicinity on that date and why?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the arrangements made on this occasion did not differ from those commonly adopted for political meetings in this hall. There were two uniformed officers stationed outside the hall and there were seven others available in the vicinity. The local sub-divisional inspector, who was going round his sub-division in plain clothes, visited the hall while the meeting was in progress, but there were no other officers in plain clothes on duty at the meeting and there was no question of anyone requisitioning police officers.

Mr. Groves: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that at meetings other than those of the Fascists, there are no police, and whether, under the 1936 Act, there is to be provided an audience of police in plain clothes equal to the number of ordinary spectators?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. The hon. Member is misinformed. As far as meetings in this hall are concerned, we always adopt the same procedure. The number of police who are on duty is exactly the same whatever the meetings, whether it be Labour, Conservative or Fascist.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I addressed a meeting in the same hall last Sunday night, and that there were no plain-clothes policemen there?

Hon. Members: How do you know?

ELECTRIC SUPPLY WORKS, BLACKPOOL (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at the electric supply works at Blackpool on Monday; what was the cause of the accident; and how many people were injured?

Sir S. Hoare: I have received a preliminary report from which it appears that a man working at a switchboard touched a live conductor and was badly burned. No other person was injured. The circumstances are being further investigated by one of the electrical inspectors of the Factory Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

SECTION HOUSES.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary what is the estimated expenditure on the 30 new section houses to be built and the 20 existing section houses which it is proposed to reconstruct during the next seven or eight years within the Metropolitan police area; which section houses it is proposed to reconstruct; and in which areas new buildings are to be built?

Sir S. Hoare: As no final decision with regard to either the section houses to be reconstructed or the new ones to be built has been, or can be, reached for some time, I cannot give the hon. Member the detailed information he seeks. The actual expenditure on section houses under the building programme sanctioned by Parliament in 1935 will necessarily depend to a considerable extent on what may happen with regard to building costs and on other factors, but, on the information at present available, it appears likely that it will amount to about £2,000,000.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the great experience in this matter of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, will the Home Secretary consult with that Department so as to get a more reasonable cost of building than that indicated in his reply?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no reason to think that the work will not be carried out economically, but I will certainly take account of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Kelly: Is any part of the cost of £2,000,000 to be imposed upon the local rates in the Metropolitan area?

Sir S. Hoare: As the hon. Member is aware, police expenditure is always 50 per cent. State and 50 per cent. local.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There are on the Order Paper 82 questions, 24 of which deal with air-raid precuations. Would it not be possible to select a certain number of representative questions on air-raid precautions, as is done in the "Times," so that there would be time for some of the other questions?

Mr. Sandys: Further to the point of Order. Does not the number of questions on air-raid precautions show the importance which the country attaches to them?

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to select them.

RECEIVER.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary by whom and under what authority the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District is appointed; and whether expenditure of moneys by that department is approved by the Treasury before being entered into?

Sir S. Hoare: The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District is appointed by the Crown under Section 10 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829. Responsibility for approving expenditure from the Metropolitan Police Fund rests not on the Treasury but on the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolis.

Mr. McEntee: Has any amendment of any kind been made in the powers or duties of the Receiver since 1829, and, if not, is it not time that this matter was reviewed?

Sir S. Hoare: No amendment has been made, because no amendment has been needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC MISSION (M. VAN ZEELAND'S REPORT).

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether, he has now considered the Van Zeeland Report on world economic conditions; and whether he contemplates giving effect to any part or parts of this Report?

The Prime Minister: The Report is still under consideration, and I feel that in


present circumstances it would be well to defer any decision as to whether effect can be given to its recommendations.

Mr. Price: Have other Governments been consulted as to what is their attitude to the Van Zeeland Report?

The Prime Minister: We are in consultation with the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether the Economic Advisory Council is continuing its labours, and when it last met?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question, the main work of the council is discharged through two standing committees dealing with economic information and scientific research, respectively. There have been two meetings of these committees since the beginning of the year.

Mr. Adams: Is it anticipated that there will be successive meetings?

The Prime Minister: I anticipate that at least the sub-committees will meet from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC APPEASEMENT.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Motion for economic appeasement in Europe standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington and others:

[That this House is of opinion that an essential condition of enduring peace in Europe lies in a settlement of the economic difficulties of the nations, and especially the economic difficulties arising out of or in connection with the peace treaties concluded after the end of the World War, 1914 to 1918, and requests the Government to take the initiative in calling a European and Near-Eastern conference, under the auspices of the League of Nations, to consider the settlement of outstanding questions, including both European and colonial problems.]

The Prime Minister: I can hold out no hope of special time being given for

the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Lansbury: Would it not be possible through the usual channels to have this discussion on a Supply day on the Motion for the Adjournment, seeing that this is the most important international question of the day?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is in the discretion of the Opposition, and he should make his representations to them.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that there can be no economic or political appeasement until we get a new Government?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Would it not be possible to have a Division immediately on Monday on the Motion of the party opposite in order to have this discussion?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FORCES (NATIONAL CONTROL).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the differences in organisation, plans of action in the detection and prevention of crime, and conditions of service of serving police officers, and also in view of the growing financial and other difficulties now being experienced by some local police authorities to provide adequate means and equipment to cope with the modern criminals, he will take the necessary steps to bring all police forces within the United Kingdom under a single national control?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I do not accept the hon. Member's premises, and I do not consider that there is any occasion for a radical change such as he suggests to a totalitarian form of organisation.

Mr. McEntee: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the Army, Navy and Air Force totalitarian?

Sir S. Hoare: I would draw a very marked distinction between a fighting service and a civilian force.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the Post Office totalitarian?

Mr. Holdsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report made to the House by a Select Committee to the last Parliament which refuted the suggestion of a national police force?

Oral Answers to Questions — PHYSICAL TRAINING (TEACHERS).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) why teachers of physical training who have undergone a three years' course are not, in view of the responsible and arduous nature of their work, placed on the graduate scale or paid a salary equal to that of a graduate;
(2) whether he is ware that students who gain the London University diploma at the Slade School are given graduate status and paid accordingly; and for what reason teachers of physical training, who have undergone a course for at least three years at one of the physical training colleges, cannot be granted similar status and pay;
(3) whether he is aware that under Section 7 (e) of the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee on salary scales for teachers in secondary schools it is provided that non-graduate teachers may be placed on the graduate scale if, inter alia, they have undergone a three-years' full-time approved course and passed a suitable examination thereafter; how many courses have yet been recognised under this Section; and whether, in view of the increased importance of physical training, arrangements can now be made to recognise the three-year courses of the physical education colleges for this purpose?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to women teachers of physical training employed full-time in secondary schools. The salary scales of these teachers, as of all full-time teachers in secondary schools, are regulated by the Burnham Secondary Report and any question of modifying the report is a matter in the first instance for the appropriate Burnham Committee. The London University Diploma in Fine Art gained by students at the Slade School, does not qualify a teacher to be placed on the graduate scale unless supplemented by the Board's Art Teacher's Diploma, the award of which necessitates, inter alia, a further year of professional training, or in certain cases at least seven years' teaching experience as a full-time specialist teacher of art, and the passing of an examination in the principles of teaching and school management. No

courses have yet been approved under Section 7 (e) of the Burnham Secondary Report. The consideration of the three-year courses of the physical training colleges for this purpose would be a matter for the Burnham Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are more persons in receipt of ordinary outdoor relief in the administrative county of Durham than in the combined areas of Newcastle, Northumberland, Tynemouth, and the county boroughs of Durham, and that the poor rate is a serious burden to the county, being more than three times that of the average for this country; and will he at an early date introduce a scheme with a view of helping to make this public assistance rate in the county comparable to that for the rest of the country?

Sir K. Wood: The statistical comparisons made in the first two parts of the question are accurate. The hon. Member will, however, be aware that considerable weight is given to variations of local needs and resources in the distribution of the block grants paid by the Exchequer, and I may mention that the total amount payable by way of block grant to the local authorities in the administrative county of Durham in respect of the year 1938–39 is estimated to be equivalent to a rate of about 10s. 5d. As a result of the recent changes made in connection with the block grant, which were fully discussed in the House, local authorities in the county as a whole gained the equivalent of a rate of 1s. 5d., and I am unable to make provision for any further increase.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the poor rate in Durham is 10s. 5d. in the £, a figure which is borne very heavily by the small traders and townspeople, and will he try to do something more than has been done to help them so as to bring their poor rate to a figure comparable to that of the rest of the country?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DIPHTHERIA.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of diphtheria and deaths therefrom shown annually and in the aggregate between 1st October, 1931, and the latest convenient date?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon.

ENGLAND AND WALES.


Period.
Number of Diphtheria Notifications.*
Number of deaths registered and classified as due to Diphtheria.


October to December, 1931, inclusive
…
12,829 (13 weeks)
633


1932
…
43,399 (52 weeks)
2,339


1933
…
47,435 (52 weeks)
2,646


1934
…
68,759 (52 weeks)
4,085


1935
…
65,084 (52 weeks)
3,488


1936
…
57,795 (53 weeks)
3,081


Total
…
295,301
16,272


*Based on weekly returns.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION (WESTMINSTER).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the atmospheric pollution of the city of Westminster, as measured by sulphur deposit for the month of February, was twice the figure registered at Scunthorpe, which town is the centre of the Lincolnshire steel industry; and will he take the necessary steps to render the atmosphere of Westminster as healthy as that of a busy industrial area?

Sir K. Wood: I have no information which enables me to verify my hon. Friend's figures. The responsibility for the administration of the relevant Acts of Parliament in London lies with the Metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council.

Mr. Liddall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no improvement of the atmosphere of London for the past 15 years, while the amount of sulphur has slightly increased?

Sir K. Wood: I am sorry to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health whether he receives yearly or half-yearly a report from the various rating

Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gallacher: May we take it that the Minister is giving special attention to combating this widespread and dangerous disease?

Sir K. Wood: I am doing all I can.

Following is the statement:

authorities in connection with their rates; whether he is aware of the increase of rates by the majority of these authorities for the half-year ending September, 1938, and of the heavy burden put upon them by the Derating Act, 1929; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Sir K. Wood: It is the practice of my Department to obtain from rating authorities in England and Wales copies of the rate demand notes issued by those authorities for each period for which rates are levied. Many rating authorities have not yet made their rates for the half-year ending September, 1938, and some time must necessarily elapse before information becomes available as to the proportion of rating areas in which the rates for that half-year show an increase over the corresponding half-year in 1937–38 The hon. Member will be aware that the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, were accompanied by new financial arrangements between the Exchequer and local authorities.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are three causes for the big jump in rates in all parts of the country, which are too long for me to explain now?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a little private conversation with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the National Debt is held directly, or indirectly, by thrift organisations of all sorts and by public departments not associated with thrift organisations?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I regret that the information requested is not available.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the National Debt for the year ended March, 1931, and for the nearest available date for 1938?

Sir J. Simon: The nominal total on 31st March, 1931, was £7,413 millions and on the 31st March, 1937 (the latest date for which figures are available at present) £7,797 millions. The latter figure, however, included £350 millions borrowed on behalf of the Exchange Equalisation Account, against which assets are held.

Mr. Thorne: Still solvent?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase has taken place in the last 10 years in the aggregate of the rate- and grant-borne expenditure of the local authorities in Great Britain?

Sir J. Simon: Between the years 1927–28 and the latest available year (1935–36 in England and Wales and 1934–35 in Scotland), the increase in the expenditure to which my hon. Friend refers was £53,500,000. This increase is practically the same as the increase in the amount of Government grants over the same period, but my hon. Friend will recollect that there have been major rating reforms since 1927.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why his information is so late as 1935, seeing that in the financial statement published on Budget day last year

information was given for at least 12 months later than the information with which he now furnishes me?

Sir J. Simon: I have given the figures which we have. If the hon. Member will refer me to that statement I will consider it.

Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to publish in this year's financial statement the figures for the latest available date, so that we may have this information as to the enormous increase in local expenditure?

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the hon. Member before he answers his questions next time?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SCHEMES (POSTPONEMENT).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of schemes of capital expenditure of national, municipal, and industrial concerns, respectively, exceeding £250,000 each, which have been deferred in agreement with the respective Ministries concerned until such times as employment through the rearmament programme is less general?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. It is not practicable to make such a statement.

Mr. Adams: As this is a matter of considerable national interest will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the figures?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will see that what he has asked would require a very wide survey, but I will consider his suggestion.

Mr. Adams: Is it not the position that the information is in the possession of the respective Ministries of the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAVINGS BANKS AND SOCIETIES (DEPOSITS).

Mr. Riley: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of the deposits to date in the Post Office savings bank, trustees savings banks, and industrial societies, respectively?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): As the answer


contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


—
Date.
Amount.




£ millions.


Post Office Savings Bank.
28th Feb., 1938.
482.2


Trustee Savings Banks
28th Feb., 1938.
227.7


Industrial and Provident Societies.
31st Dec., 1936.
267.7

The first two figures include estimated accrued interest, and the second includes the deposits of both the Ordinary and Special Investment Departments. The third figure includes both share and loan capital of the societies, and also reserves.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-CIVIL SERVANTS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. White: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the appointment of an ex-industrial insurance commissioner to the post of director of a prominent insurance company; and whether he is satisfied that this is in accord with the practice governing the actions of ex-members of the Services and the Civil Service?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAT SHEEP AND LAMBS.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of fat sheep offered for sale or handled in slaughter-houses in the United Kingdom during January and February of this year and during the same months of 1937?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. Some comparison of marketings of fat sheep and lambs can be made from the numbers of such animals on offer at certain representative markets in England and Wales. The total number of fat sheep and lambs offered at these markets in January and February of this year was 3½ per cent. greater than the number for the corresponding two months of 1937.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW—EDINBURGH ROAD (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport whether, following the local inquiry into the matter, he is in a position to announce that the 30-mile-per-hour speed limit on the new Glasgow—Edinburgh road at Carntyne will be re-imposed?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I will announce my decision as soon as I have received, and had an opportunity of considering, the inspector's report of the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE KIOSK, LADYWOOD, SALWARPE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will have the matter of the lack of provision of the telephone kiosks at Ladywood, Salwarpe, inquired into with a view to remedying this state of affairs?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): It is a condition of the establishment of telephone kiosks in small villages without a Post Office, such as Ladywood, Salwarpe, that the parish council should pay a sum of £4 a year for five years, as a small contribution towards the loss involved. I find that in this case the parish council are unwilling to make the contribution; and I am sorry, therefore, that it is not possible to make any further progress in the matter.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend not aware how very important it is that all inhabitants in the Evesham division should be satisfied?

Sir W. Womersley: I have had considerable correspondence with the parish council on this matter, and I suggest that my hon. Friend should try his eloquence upon the parish council, because he may succeed where I have failed.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the whole matter very unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL COUNCIL OF COLLIERY OWNERS.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has found any means of giving statutory authority


to the assurances given by the Central Council of Colliery Owners, published in Command Paper No. 5693?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir. While the question of discussions between the executive boards and representative bodies of consumers is obviously a matter which can only be dealt with by assurances honourably observed, all the district executive boards have given an undertaking that they will take the steps necessary for the purpose of making such amendments of their district schemes as may be required to make statutorily binding the Assurances numbered 1, 3 and 4 in Command Paper No. 5693, as to changing of sources of supply, enabling a purchaser to refer to a committee of investigation a complaint in respect of any price that may be quoted to him, and the reserving of coal pending the hearing of the complaint. The terms of the necessary amendments of the schemes are now being considered in consultation with the executive boards.

Sir R. Clarry: While thanking the Minister for his action, which will considerably allay suspicion and apprehension among all classes of coal consumers, may I ask when it is contemplated that legal effect will be given to these assurances—the date?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot give a date, because they require a great deal of consideration and drafting. There are 17 Schemes in which amendments have to be made. The House will recollect that, pending that consummation, the assurances are already in force. That is an undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (AERODROMES, CUMBERLAND).

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can state what aerodromes he is proposing to create in the county of Cumberland?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): The present proposal is to establish two aerodromes for Royal Air Force purposes in Cumberland.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the fact that some of the land which I understand it is proposed to take is among the best

agricultural land in the district, was careful consideration given to other possible sites?

Earl Winterton: In all these cases the greatest consideration is given to all these matters, but I must point out the difficulty in which the Air Ministry is placed, because in every neighbourhood to which they go there is always agricultural land.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Noble Lord not aware that as soon as landowners know the Government are going to erect an aerodrome, up goes the price of the land by 100 to 200 per cent.?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (MOTOR LAUNCHES, TENDERS).

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps were taken by the Air Ministry before placing the contract for Imperial Airways, Limited, motor-boats with the Power Boat Company to ascertain how the price and performance of the boats compared with others which could be supplied by other firms; whether tenders were called for; and, if not, for what reason?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The order for motor launches which was placed with the Power Boat Company was approved after recourse to the normal contract practice of competitive tender. The tenders submitted were carefully considered in the light of all relevant factors, including price, performance and delivery dates.

Captain Macdonald: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that firms which were established for many years before the Power Boat Company came into existence were not consulted or allowed to tender for this contract?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The tender list was drawn up in consultation between Imperial Airways and the Air Ministry and 10 firms were invited to tender.

Captain Macdonald: Is it not a fact that there are many more than 10 firms which have been building motor boats for the Government? Are there not several firms which have been on the Admiralty and Air Force list for a great many years which were not consulted?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That may be so, I could not say whether it is so offhand, but I think 10 firms is a pretty fair number to ask to tender.

Mr. De la Bère: Will any other firms be included next time?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Sir John Haslam: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious condition of the Lancashire cotton industry; and does he propose to introduce the Cotton Industry Enabling Bill, urgently desired by every section of the industry, or has he any alternative scheme to prevent the further decline of Britain's leading export industry?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) on 22nd March.

Mr. Fleming: Has my right hon. Friend received any objections at all to the Enabling Bill?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I have had letters, and if the hon. Member will refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) he will see that there have been objections by textile industries other than the cotton industry, and it is exactly that difficulty which I am trying to assist in solving.

Mr. Maxton: Before bringing forward any legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Scottish branch of the cotton industry has consideration?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I am in communication with the Scottish branch, and I understand that the promoters of the Lancashire scheme have recently been up to Scotland and interviewed the Scottish branch.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present military situation in China?

The Prime Minister: There has been considerable fighting in South Shantung

and along the line of the Tientsin-Pukow railway north of the important railway junction of Hsuchow. In this area the Chinese appear to be counter-attacking with some success, but reports are conflicting and the exact situation is obscure. Meanwhile, the Japanese advance northwards along the Tientsin-Pukow railway has halted, and on this and other fronts only minor operations have been proceeding. Guerilla attacks on Japanese lines of communication continue in a number of localities.

Mr. Henderson: Are His Majesty's Government doing everything they can to assist the Chinese Government, in accordance with the resolution passed by the League Assembly in October of last year?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will call for a report from His Majesty's diplomatic, consular and other agents in China concerning the methods of warfare employed by the Japanese army, and concerning the systematic destruction of non-miltary public and private property which they have done?

The Prime Minister: Some reports on this subject have been received, and I see no need to call for a special one. Any instances of destruction of British property by Japanese or Chinese troops which come to my notice are being taken up with the Japanese or Chinese Governments.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are not the Japanese army adopting methods of warfare which have not been known since the Thirty Years' War, and is not that a matter of general international importance which ought to be brought authoritatively to the notice of public opinion?

The Prime Minister: A good deal of property has been destroyed on both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations or conversations have taken or are taking place by His Majesty's Government, on in conjunction with the French Government, with the Government of Czechoslovakia


regarding a peaceful settlement of the German minority question in Czechoslovakia; and whether he can make a statement?

The Prime Minister: I have for the present nothing to add to what I said on this question in my statement in the House on 24th March.

Mr. Riley: Is the Prime Minister bearing in mind that on 5th March, the President of the Republic expressed his willingness to co-operate with other Powers in order to find a solution of the problem?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I have that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister how many Governments have signed the International Convention prohibiting the transmission of offensive broadcasts; whether Germany or Italy have given any reasons for claiming exemption; and whether the articles of the Convention will be published?

The Prime Minister: An International Convention concerning the use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace was signed at Geneva on 23rd September, 1936, by representatives of 28 countries, of whom six have subsequently proceeded to ratification. Two other countries have since acceded. As neither Germany nor Italy has signed this Convention, the second part of the question does not arise. As regards the third part of the question, the text of the convention was published last year as a White Paper (Cmd. 5505).

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

Sir John Anderson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to announce any decision with regard to the extension of the privilege of marriage allowances to officers of the medical branch of the Royal Navy?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): As I mentioned in the Debate on the Estimates I was sorry the time had not permitted of

a complete investigation of the application of marriage allowance to medical officers. It has now been decided that there is no reason for making any difference in the case of these officers, and it has just been announced to the Fleet that they will receive marriage allowances under the same conditions as other naval officers.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Arising out of that answer, with which, I am sure, medical officers in the Navy will be very pleased, may I ask whether, the Admiralty having considered this matter for a year, the Parliamentary Secretary will now convey to the First Lord the advisability of reviewing the whole of the marriage allowances?

Mr. Shakespeare: If I took any such foolish suggestion—[Interruption]—I should not be acting in the interests of the—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: It was somewhat unusual language to me in answering a question.

Mr. Shakespeare: In view of your remark, Mr. Speaker, I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Thorne: I have had stronger language used against me.

DESTROYER PROGRAMME.

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can announce the allocation of any further Naval orders?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. Orders for the final eight destroyers of the 1937 programme are being placed with the following firms:
His Majesty's Ships "Larne" and "Lively": Messrs. Cammell Laird and Company, Limited, Birkenhead.
His Majesty's Ships "Legion" and "Lightning": Messrs. Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company, Wallsend-on-Tyne. (The hulls to be built by R. and W. Hawthorne, Leslie, Hebburn-on-Tyne.)
His Majesty's Ships "Lookout" and "Loyal": Messrs. Scotts Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Greenock.
His Majesty's Ships "Laforey" and "Lance": Messrs. Yarrow and Company, Scotstoun, Glasgow.

Mr. Logan: Will the Minister give consideration to Merseyside, and is it possible to make arrangements for the Liverpool side to participate in this work?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think they have participated in part.

Mr. Maxton: Who chooses these extraordinary names?

MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS (INQUIRY).

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is to be the nature of the inquiry into the allegations recently made with regard to the high price and inefficiency of certain boats supplied to the Royal Navy by the Power Boat Company; and what steps will be taken to call for and obtain evidence from all material quarters?

Mr. Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord, and I, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Civil Lord, are making an immediate and full investigation into the charges made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) in the light of all the information available. If any hon. Member is in possession of information relative to these charges which he would like the Admiralty to examine, we should be glad to receive it immediately as we intend to report the result of our inquiry to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Captain Macdonald: In view of the dissatisfaction existing in naval and boatbuilding circles, will the hon. Gentleman consider the necessity for a public inquiry in order that people who otherwise would not feel disposed to give evidence would do so, and be protected as a result of it?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Would it not be better that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. - Commander Fletcher), rather than take advantage of his privilege as a Member of this House to make such statements here, should make them outside?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I ask him, in view of his announcement, whether it is not a fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) did ask for a judicial inquiry, and that he asked that any evidence submitted to

the Admiralty should be under such conditions as gave proper security and immunity to those who offered it?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so. The allegations were made in the course of the Debate on the Navy Estimates as regards the conduct of the Admiralty, and my hon. and gallant Friend, in replying, offered the fullest investigation, conducted by himself and myself. That was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and I think he took what is the usual course when such allegations are made. I will quote his words:
I think it is essential that they should be publicly refuted if they are not true, and that if it is not possible to give a full explanation there ought to be a full and detailed inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1938; col. 731, Vol. 333.]
The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton did not submit evidence, so that it is very difficult for my hon. and gallant Friend to determine whether there is a prima facie case for another form of inquiry. Unless that is done it is very difficult for him to decide. In the meantime, we are carrying out a full investigation, and if any Member has information in his possession and will submit it to us, we shall be very grateful for it.

Mr. Alexander: Is the Minister not aware that, on the examination of the evidence, and the accumulated evidence, possessed by my hon. and gallant Friend, it has become apparent that only a judicial inquiry can be satisfactory; has he not received requests for a judicial inquiry and, if so, will he say what is the decision of the Admiralty on those requests?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am trying to make it plain that the request made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for a judicial inquiry was an afterthought, and that an inquiry asked for in the course of the Debate, and, I think, accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough, has been carried out. When that inquiry is finished and a report laid before Parliament, if the House of Commons thinks that another form of inquiry is necessary, then, of course, my right hon. Friend will consider that position.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Has the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton been asked


to submit evidence before the inquiry and refused to do so to support his own allegations?

Mr. Shakespeare: The position is as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He was unwilling to submit the evidence on which he based his allegation except to a committee presided over by some judicial authority?

Captain Macdonald: Is it not a fact that most of the evidence would have to come from people who would run the risk of being victimised?

Mr. Shakespeare: That may be so, but charges are frequently made against Government Departments, and when they are made by Members of this House it is according to custom and precedent that Members submit, at least to the head of the Department, in confidence, the evidence on which such charges are based. The head of the Department, being naturally jealous of the honour of his Department, has to decide whether there is a prima facie case. That has not been done, but we are carrying out our promise.

Mr. Thorne: In the event of anyone giving evidence before the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, if they are victimised in consequence, are you not entitled, Mr. Speaker, to call them up to the Bar of the House in order that they may be admonished?

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to decide that now.

Mr. Alexander: In view of the statement that has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask whether he is aware that the practice to which he has just referred was not adopted in the case of the Cadman inquiry? It is essential, in the light of the facts which were brought to the notice of the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton, that witnesses should be called and papers sent for in circumstances in which there can be examination and cross-examination, and on that we demand now a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Shakespeare: The charges in this case are of a rather different nature. They

concern the conduct of the Admiralty with regard to facts for which the Admiralty is solely responsible, and I think the House would expect us, first of all, at least to be allowed to study and try to refute, if possible, those facts. If we cannot do that, the right hon. Gentleman can call for some other form of inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week; and also how far he proposes to go with business to-night in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried?

The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be as follows;
Monday.—Debate on Opposition Motion of Censure with regard to Foreign Affairs.
Tuesday.—Third Reading of the Coal Bill.
Wednesday—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil and Revenue Departments Estimates, and consideration in Committee of Supply of Class VII Buildings Votes Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10.
Thursday.—Report and Third Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill.
The Government Business to be taken on Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
With regard to to-night, we are moving to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to conclude the Report stage of the Coal Bill.
I should like to take this opportunity to state that to-morrow, Friday, in addition to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and the Additional Import Duties Order, No. 3, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Post Office (Sites) Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House."—(The Prime Minister.)

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 124.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Apsley, Lord




Assheton, R.
Goldie, N. B.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Radford, E. A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridloy, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bernays, R. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Blair, Sir R.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boulton, W. W.
Hambro, A. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Harbord, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Higgs, W. F.
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cary, R. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sandys, E. D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leigh, Sir J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Liddall, W. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Spens, W. P.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Critchley, A
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Culverwell, C. T.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Maitland, A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De la Bère, R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Train, Sir J.


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dodd, J. S
Markham, S. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Doland, G. F.
Marsden, Commander A.
Turton, R. H.


Donner, P. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Edge, Sir W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morgan, R. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wells, S. R.


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emery, J. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emrys Evans, P. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fildes, Sir H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Patrick, C. M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Fleming, E. L.
Peake, O.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peat, C. U.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Furness, S. N.
Peters, Dr. S. J.



Fyfe, D. P. M.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pilkington, R.








NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bellenger F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton. T. M.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cassells, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Cooks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Montague, F.
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Resolutions agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to provide for the registration and inspection of nursing homes in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Douglas Thomson; supported by Major Neven-Spence, Mr. Foot, Mr. George Morrison, and Mr. Erskine Hill; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (REPAIRS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Land Tax Commissioners Bill, without Amendment.

Dogs Act (1871) Amendment Bill (changed to "Dogs Amendment Bill"), with Amendments.

Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords],—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Prevention of Road Accidents,—That they request that the Commons will be pleased to give leave to Lieut.-Colonel John Theodore Cuthbert Moore-Brabazon, M.C., a Member of their House, to attend, in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Prevention of Road Accidents.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

I. "That, in the case of the Surrey County Council [Lords], Petition for


Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Salford Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill, the Conveyancing Amendment (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and the Scottish Land Court Bill): Sir Adrian Baillie, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Captain Cobb, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Fyfe, Mr. Goldie, Mr. Hely-Hutchinson, Sir Joseph Leech, Mr. Ross Taylor, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [30th March] proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended.

Which Amendment was: In Clause 41—(Duty of the Commission to reduce number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in interests of efficiency)—page 39, line 10, to leave out "said Act," and to insert "Coal Mines Act, 1930."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Amendment agreed to.

4.5 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, in page 39, line 25, to leave out from "inadequate," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
(3) After receiving any such recommendation from the Commission the Board of Trade may lay before Parliament the report in which the recommendation was contained and may then make a provisional order declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of coal-mining undertakings should be reduced in the area with respect to which the recommendation was made and directing that the said powers of the Commission shall become exercisable in that area:
Provided that any such provisional order shall so define the area in which the said powers are to become exercisable as to show so far as practicable what undertakings are likely to be affected by their exercise, and the order when made shall be published in the London Gazette (or, in the case of an order relating to an area in Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette) and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to which the order relates.
(4) A provisional order made under this Section shall be of no effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament, but if the order is so confirmed, either without modifications or with modifications as to the area with respect to which the order is to have effect, it shall come into force on the date of the passing of the Act confirming the order or on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, whichever is the later date.
This Amendment is moved in consequence of a pledge which I gave during the course of the Debate in Committee, when the opinion was expressed in more than one quarter of the Committee that in some form or other there should be an opportunity for an interest which might be affected by compulsory amalgamation—by "interest" I do not mean only

coal interest, but interest such as that of local authorities or representatives of employés—should have some opportunity of stating its case in public. In order to explain this Amendment and the reasons which have led up to it, it is necessary to go back a little into the history of compulsory amalgamation. Under the Act of 1930 wide questions of national interest in compulsory amalgamation were left to the Railway and Canal Commission, the same body as was called upon to decide the narrower question of equity and fairness as between the parties in any amalgamation. It was the opinion of the Government before they introduced this Bill that that has proved to be a mistake, that the Railway and Canal Commission, a judicial body, was not the proper body to whom to leave questions of national interest. They are mostly questions which are not questions of fact, but of opinion; questions, therefore, which are not susceptible of proof in the legal sense, but only of conviction to the individual mind. It was the fact that it was left to the Railway and Canal Commission to decide on questions of this kind which to my mind more than anything else made the Act of 1930 inoperative.
It was, therefore, decided, in view of the position of the Railway and Canal Commission and the advice of the Government's legal officers that the Act as thus drafted was quite nugatory, that new machinery must be introduced if the Act was to continue to operate. It was decided that questions of this kind, wide questions of general national interest and general public policy, should be decided by Parliament. Parliament, I think, is the right place in which they should be decided. After all, it is what all of us are here for—to make up our minds, on a variety of questions, whether what is proposed is in fact for the general interest or not. In making up our minds, of course, we have not to be guided by legal rules or legal proof, but simply by how it appears to us as reasonable people. Therefore, I do not think there is any real criticism in any quarter of the proposal to remove the decisions from the Railway and Canal Commission and to give them to Parliament.
As a matter of fact, the events of the last six or seven years have made such a change even more desirable to-day than perhaps they would have been if this


proposal had been inserted in the Act of 1930. In these seven years a great many people have given a good deal of closer attention to the problems of the mining industry than they were ever called upon to give or ever had given before; and the result is that words like "compulsory amalgamation"—which in 1930 to many people, perhaps more or less ignorant of the industry, were blessed words like "Mesopotamia," in which in themselves were contained the salvation of the industry—have now come to be regarded from a much more realistic point of view. I do not think that anyone will contend, certainly I shall not, although I am responsible for introducing these provisions with regard to compulsory amalgamation, that the salvation of the industry lies alone in compulsory amalgamation. I would not contend that all amalgamations are necessarily good. What I do contend is that there are a number of amalgamations which are good, which are valuable and which are indeed inevitable, and that if these amalgamations, under proper safeguards, are not carried out by private enterprise, it is the duty of the State to do them compulsorily.
But I recognise, as I think everyone in the House recognises, that there are very wide questions involved in amalgamations; something much more than just an interchange of shares between two or three collieries, and the result of that upon the colliery shareholders; something more even than the effect of that amalgamation on the possibility of producing coal more cheaply or more efficiently. I think we all recognise that there are wide social and general economic and industrial problems bound up with these questions, and it seems to me all the more necessary, therefore, that Parliament should be the body by which consideration is to be given to the question whether these schemes are in the national interest. The Railway and Canal Commission will decide the question of the schmes themselves, whether they are fair as between parties and what the allocation of shares must be. For that they are the ideal body. But for these wider questions it has been the Government's belief that Parliament and not a judicial body is the right place.
With that, with the exception of the Mining Association, I think there is practically unanimous agreement. A matter

which remains a matter of difference is the method by which Parliament shall be enabled to judge these questions, and the opportunity it shall have for understanding the problems before it is called upon to make up its mind and to come to a decision. As the Bill was originally introduced the method proposed was the method of a negative Resolution. It is quite absurd to say about the method of a negative Resolution, that such a Resolution must go through the House without debate. It is quite true that usually it does go through without debate, because it usually deals with non-controversial subjects, but all of us in our experience in this House have known occasions when the subject has been controversial, and all of us know that a debate can, in fact, be forced even upon a negative Resolution. Quite frankly, the difference between a negative and an affirmative Resolution is not that in the one case a debate is allowed and that in the other it is not. It is really that a negative Resolution is more convenient to the Government and that an affirmative Resolution is more convenient to the House as a whole.
But quite apart from any question of altering the idea of a negative Resolution into that of an affirmative Resolution, it was, I think, clear, certainly it was clear from the Debate which we had on the last occasion, that on all sides of the House there was a general feeling that there should be some opportunity given to those who were opposed to these proposals to state their case, so that Parliament when it came to a decision should know from their own mouths what their case was. It was a demand which was put on behalf of a variety of different interests—for the mine owners, because they felt that the mine owners should be entitled to state before Parliament that these proposals, far from leading to greater efficiency, would in fact be a disadvantage to the industry; for the local authorities, because it was felt that local authorities should have an opportunity of saying what the passage of such a scheme might be upon their local areas; and those concerned with the organisation of the workers felt that there should be some opportunity for Parliament to know and to judge what the effect might be upon employment in an area Therefore, there was a clear desire in all parts of the House, I think,


for some form of inquiry, and it is quite clear that that inquiry must be a public inquiry. I know that the Amendment in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite asks only for representations to be made to the Commission, but it is quite clear that if Parliament is to make up its mind as a result of the inquiry, that inquiry must be a public one, and Parliament must know what is being said there and have the evidence before that inquiry as material on which to judge.
I promised that, at this stage, I would, without committing myself to a particular form, give an opportunity for a public inquiry of some kind, where these interests would be able to state their case and make their representation. There were three ways in which the inquiry could be held. The first was the way which was suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite; that was an inquiry by the Coal Commission. Then there was the possibility of an ordinary public inquiry, held by some independent person, who would make a report to me, which I would lay before Parliament. Thirdly, there was the possibility of an inquiry by Parliament itself. On considering these, I had very little difficulty in deciding in favour of the last: for this reason, that it was, after all, Parliament which was going to decide, and it is much better that it should be Parliament before whom the people who wish to state their views should appear. In any matter, when we want to make our views known, the person to whom we want to go is the person who will ultimately have to decide.
It then became a question of how that inquiry should be carried out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis) had on the Paper a scheme which would enable not only one inquiry, but, I think, something like four inquiries to be made. I felt, and I think it was the feeling on all sides of the House, that the method proposed by the hon. Member was, to say the least, slightly cumbersome. What I wanted to find was a Parliamentary method which would be be as expeditious as possible, while fulfilling the pledge I gave. Above all, I was anxious not to try to invent some ad hoc method of dealing with this situation. When we have an old and tried Parliamentary form, it is better to stick

to it as far as we can, rather than to try to invent something new for each particular case. Therefore, I decided that the only form of procedure which met my point of view was that which was incorporated in the Amendment that I am now moving—Provisional Order procedure.

Mr. Batey: What is that?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has been a number of years in this House, and knows what it is.

Mr. James Griffiths: That is why he asked.

Mr. Batey: What good is it?

Mr. Stanley: Provisional Order procedure is a well-established procedure in this House. Under it, a number of important things, dealing with a number of interests, have been dealt with. Many Members here have served on these Select Committees, and, as far as I know, it is a procedure which has worked well. I would point out that there are some precedents under Provisional Order procedure for having a public inquiry first. I have not adopted that. It would be unnecessary. We have to consider broad questions of policy, and it would be a mere duplication of procedure to have a public inquiry first. The procedure suggested carries out, I think, the pledge that I gave. There was another promise, that the locality should be made aware of what has happened. Hon. Members will see that in the Amendment there is provision for publication not only in the London Gazette, but also in a local newspaper in the area affected. Under the Provisional Order procedure, there is an opportunity, if the Measure is opposed, for a hearing by a Select Committee, before whom the interests affected can appear and state their objections.
I do not deny that from the point of view merely of the Government this scheme has a disadvantage over the scheme, say, of an affirmative Resolution. It is a slow one. It would naturally be more convenient for the Government of the day if one could get through with greater speed; and, for that reason, I regret that this does mean a longer time for consideration. But that longer time may not be wasted if, as a result of that full examination, we can get a decision by Parliament which no


one can question, and which will leave no one an opportunity for saying, "If only my point of view had been properly put, Parliament would never have come to that decision." I notice that, after I had given a pledge of this kind in Committee, one newspaper said that to adopt this procedure would involve a Select Committee, which would throw the matter into political controversy. There is a possibility of throwing it into political controversy as soon as you bring it to Parliament at all, but I would most strongly deny that it is in a Select Committee, as proposed here, that you find the political controversy, and not in a Debate on an affirmative Resolution on the Floor of the House. Everyone who has had experience of serving on committees of that kind knows that we are a great deal more controversial on the Floor of the House, and a great deal more judicial when serving on committees of that kind. I believe that the new procedure that I now propose will give a proper opportunity for all these interests concerned to state their case, make their objections and, if their objections are good, to prove them. Where the Commission and the Government can show that it is in the national interest that these proposals shall proceed, the Commission will be able to pursue them and proceed with the later stages of their investigations.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I was ready to give the right hon. Gentleman some credit for firmness, but, after that speech, I have been completely disillusioned. He has yielded to the claims of hon. Members on the other side, and has, at the same time, made no concession to the representations from this side of the House. I detected in the course of his speech some reference to the principle of amalgamation. While I recognise that this is not the appropriate occasion for discussing that principle at large, I would just say that no one on this side accepts the view that amalgamation is the salvation of the mining industry—far from it. On the other hand, we appreciate that, in an industry with so many competitive units, a large measure of co-ordination is essential, and that that co-ordination should be expeditiously effected if it is in the national interest. But to that hon. Members on this side add that if amalgamation of mining

undertakings is applied, and if its application is proved to be detrimental, first, to the local authorities, and, secondly, to the workers in the industry, it is doubtful whether amalgamation of that kind is desirable at all. Indeed, that was the case that was put to the right hon. Gentleman when we submitted our previous Amendment, and it was upon that issue that the right hon. Gentleman gave his pledge. In my judgment, that pledge remains, as far as we are concerned, unfulfilled.
We do not dispute that Parliament should be the sole arbiter in respect of the general principles which are to govern the mining industry. General policy, certainly in so far as it affects national interests, is a matter for this House. But, in the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman, it was decided to appoint a commission to discharge certain functions relating to the mining industry in the national interest; and, in our view, that commission, once established, should have been, as far as is practical, unimpeded in its operations. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is to take from the Commission the power to determine whether mining undertakings should be amalgamated. It is hedged round with many phrases, but that is the simple issue.

Mr. Stanley: It is not to take it from them, because they have never had it.

Mr. Shinwell: But it was proposed to give them these powers in the original Bill. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, or should I refer him to the specific Clause? The fact is that under the Bill the Commission were to have powers to take steps to amalgamate mining undertakings without further reference to Parliament, except through the Board of Trade, and then by the process of Resolution in this House. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to establish the most costly machinery that this House can devise to be utilised by objectors to the amalgamation of mining undertakings, presumably local authorities, and, if need be, the workers themselves.

Mr. Holdsworth: You asked for that.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to make his speech in due course, but it was not that for which Members on this side asked. If the hon.


Member looks at the Order Paper he will see that Mr. Speaker in his discretion has refused to accept an Amendment in the name of some of my hon. Friends which precisely states the view of hon. Members on this side of the House. There is no reference in that Amendment to Provisional Order machinery for the purpose of determining whether the amalgamation of mining undertakings should be applied. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member, but if it does not, no doubt he will deal with it in due course.
What is the consequence likely to be if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is accepted? It will be, first of all, to make amalgamations less likely. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to have that unanimous expression of opinion from hon. Members opposite. They are fortified by the slight expression of opinion persisting on the Liberal benches. Sometimes it is very difficult to say who speaks for the Liberal party or who is the Liberal party. If we were to consult the views of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) and the views of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), two noted individuals and the last of the Mohicans, we should find varying views expressed indeed. It is clear that hon. Members opposite are opposed in principle to the amalgamation of mining undertakings, and that is why I say that they have obtained a great concession. The right hon. Gentleman is yielding to the clamour and he is establishing machinery which will make amalgamations less likely. I wonder whether there will be any amalgamations at all once the Provisional Order machinery is established? The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in assuming that hon. Members on this side of the House, and indeed in all quarters of the House, have some acquaintence with Provisional Order machinery. We know that it costs more. That will not be disputed.

Mr. Stanley: If you have to brief people like the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) it is very costly, but that is not essential. Members of Parliament are quite used to having cases put to them by people other than learned counsel.

Mr. Shinwell: That is very interesting, and I should like to hear the views of

the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on that matter. This sounds very much like blacklegging the legal profession, and I hope that hon. and learned Members opposite will take note of the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. That is a direct attack upon trade unionism in the legal profession. It may be true that a Member of Parliament might appear on behalf of his own local authority or of the Miners Federation of Great Britain, or of one of the district miners' associations, but the Provisional Order, to begin with, is promoted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman will not appear for the Government. The Government will be represented by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General or both, or, may be, by some well-known member of the legal profession. Is it conceivable that a body of mineowners who object to amalgamation in the area with which they are concerned would be represented by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)? Would not the hon. Member himself prefer to employ a member of the legal profession? Of course he would employ a member of the legal profession. That is bound to be so, and it is exceedingly likely that a local authority, knowing what it is up against, will be compelled to employ a member of the legal profession which is an excessively costly proceeding.
It is not only the cost of employing someone like the hon. and learned Member for Ashford or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That is only part of the cost. There is the cost of the production of the Minutes, which are very necessary in order to determine whether a case has been properly dealt with. There is the cost of all the paraphernalia associated with the Provisional Order machinery. The right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, is imposing a costly burden upon the people primarily concerned. I am not speaking for mining undertakings but for local authorities and the workers engaged in the industry. I can certainly speak for the miners in my area. If they were to be affected, I imagine that they would not care to raise an objection which would require to be heard by the Select Committee appointed under the Provisional Order machinery without being represented by counsel, which would impose a very serious financial burden upon them.
There is another aspect of this Provisional Order machinery which, apparently, has not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it—and I am willing to be corrected—Provisional Orders cannot be introduced into this House before the first meeting after Whitsun, which means that, for some-think like six months of the year, no action can be taken under the Provisional Order. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. and gallant Friend will deal with that. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept my view that the first meeting on a Provisional Order cannot be heard in this House until after Whitsun, and that for several months in the year it means that, if a Provisional Order is promoted, nothing can be done, and no objection can be raised or anything said on the subject of amalgamation? Does not that impede the amalgamation of mining undertakings, hang up the work of the Commission, and frustrate the intentions of the Government in respect of amalgamations? Is that not yielding to the clamour of hon. Members opposite and to the Mining Association? Is it not, in fact, a defeatist attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt?
If the right hon. Gentleman finds any difficulty in respect of the Provisional Order machinery, we are ready on this side of the House to present him with an escape from that difficulty through the medium of a manuscript Amendment. We shall vote against this Amendment, first of all, because we believe that the local authorities and workers engaged in the industry will not have the opportunity of being fairly heard under Provisional Order machinery; secondly, because the right hon. Gentleman, whatever concessions he may have made to the other side and to interests outside, has not fulfilled his pledge to hon. Members on this side, speaking for the local authorities and workers in the industry, and last, but not least, because we believe that this is only another case of the Government giving way to the pressure exerted by hon. Members opposite. We shall do this while recognising that perhaps it is the only alternative that is left and the only means of expression for those who wish to raise objections, but it is far from satisfactory in respect of persons with whom we are directly concerned.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I think that the House must have been very interested in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He says, in effect, "Here are five commissars termed a Commission, with power to roam over the country and make suggestions to the Board of Trade as to compulsory amalgamations." He has told the people of this country times without number that he believes in democratic government, and yet he comes to the House to-day and says, "I have no time for your Parliamentary procedure, to go upstairs and be content to accept the judgment of four or five fellow Members. I prefer to take it outside to a body, it is true, appointed by Parliament. I prefer them to be unimpeded in every action they take rather than accept a properly constituted Parliamentary Committee set up in this House." That is an astonishing declaration, but it confirms so much of what has been written by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) from time to time, and the fact that there is no democracy on that particular Front Bench. They prefer to set up these bodies and let the matter go outside this House. That is contrary to the Labour doctrine. Hand it out to some outside body. Do not let them be interfered with in any way whatever. Let no decision which they make be challenged. I should be astounded if the people of this country confirmed an attitude of that description.
I said in the last Debate that I hate compulsory amalgamations, and I do not withdraw that statement. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) challenged us on the Liberal benches on this subject. He asked who spoke for the Liberal party. I am not here to speak for the Liberal party. I was sent here as the representative of my constituency, and as an individual I express the views that I believe in, irrespective of party. It is not my conception of my duty that I was sent here to be a pure automaton for any caucus. That is not my idea of Parliamentary representation. It is the last kind of charge to be made against us on these benches that we have different opinions. Let the hon. Member read the Debate of 3rd February. Speaker after speaker on these benches objected to compulsory amalgamation. What of those benches? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—I have not the


reference, but I think my memory serves me well—put the view before the House that a pit was an economic unit it itself. Member after Member on those benches contradicted each other as the Debate proceeded. There was no unanimity as far as compulsory amalgamations were concerned. Those who were present will recollect that one speaker would express belief in compulsory amalgamations, then the next one would ask, "What is to happen to my area?" The hon. Member for Seaham ought to be the last man to complain about differences of opinion on this subject.
I was interested to hear the President of the Board of Trade in his introductory speech. Speaking of the Railway and Canal Commission I understood him to say that the question of compulsory amalgamations was not a judicial question, but that it was a question of opinion and that they were not the body to deal with that. I understood him to say that they were not capable of legal proof; that it is a question of conviction. I thought that was a remarkable confession, because the body that has had to study these compulsory amalgamations have turned down one after another because they could not stand the question of legal tests.

Mr. Stanley: As a matter of fact there has been only one case before the Railway and Canal Commission, and that did not involve physical amalgamation.

Mr. Holdsworth: My point is that very few compulsory amalgamations have been put through.

Mr. H. G. Williams: None.

Mr. Holdsworth: Very few, if any. My argument is that the Government have brought forward this procedure because amalgamations cannot be got through the Railway and Canal Commission. If we are to have these amalgamations, I accept this procedure as being much better than the procedure when the Bill was presented. What is the procedure in regard to these amalgamations? In passing, I would say that I do not think there will be any amalgamations under this procedure. I think the hon. Member for Seaham was correct there. There is very little chance of them getting through after thorough examination. What is the procedure? I have described these men as

five commissars, going round the country. They look at an area and say: "There are a certain number of pits here. We think there are far too many and we must do away with some of them." They recommend that such a thing should be done by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade say, "We think you are right. There are too many pits in this area and we must get rid of some of them" The decision is made on the question of the numbers, and whether they are able to carry on economically in a particular area. They report to the Board of Trade that compulsion should be brought to bear.
How far will the Committee upstairs be able adequately to see the details contained in the Provisional Order? I suggest that under this procedure there is no need to put the details into the Provisional Order. The Board of Trade will make a Provisional Order that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of coal mines in a particular area should be reduced. So far as I am aware, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will contradict me if I am wrong, Parliament when it gets the Provisional Order will be in this position that the Order itself will contain no particulars of the scheme. That is what I complain about. A statement has to be made as to the number of undertakings which are to be taken away, "in so far as is practicable." Is that sufficient to enable the Committee to judge the issue? Are we to judge whether compulsory amalgamations are necessary or not merely on the point of the number of undertakings in a given area? If those are the only particulars to be stated in the Provisional Order, how can the national interests really be judged in so circumscribed a matter?
I suggest that the five commissars will form their opinion on a purely theoretical economic point that there are too many undertakings in an area. I understand that the only power to modify a Provisional Order is as regards the size of the area over which the compulsory Order is to have effect. The House ought to try to grasp the point that they can only modify the size of the area in the Provisional Order.

Mr. Stanley: Or reject it.

Mr. Holdsworth: So far as I can see, when the Provisional Order goes upstairs


the point for consideration will be as to the area being too big. Do not let the House be under any misapprehension. The details of the scheme will not be detailed in the Provisional Order when it goes upstairs. We shall be merely deciding whether the number of pits in an area are too many or otherwise. The real trouble starts when the five commissars have got their Order. They will begin to make their schemes after the Order, and they will seek to put them into operation. At this particular point the inquiry is finished. They simply get a general permission to carry on with the scheme, and there is no Parliamentary control over the details of the scheme but merely over the wide issue as to whether the number of pits in a particular area is too large or too small.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the details of the scheme will come before the Railway and Canal Commission. In the first part of his speech he said he preferred the Railway and Canal Commission to Parliament, as being a more capable body for effecting amalgamations.

Mr. Holdsworth: No; I said that you were not prepared to accept that. The right hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I say there is no control as far as Parliament is concerned. In the Debate on 3rd January the right hon. Gentleman tried to get the House to agree, because he said it was a good thing for Parliament to judge the issue, and I agree with him, but even if it does go to the Railway and Canal Commission, Parliament cannot discuss the details. It is useless to come here and to advance the argument that because this sort of procedure is put into the Amendment it really is giving the House of Commons the opportunity to discuss the scheme. It is doing nothing of the kind. The real details are decided when the scheme has left this House and not when the Provisional Order is made.
Let me give an illustration. Suppose the Commission decides that the number of coal mines in Yorkshire are far too many, and that there ought to be some scheme of compulsory amalgamations. The details of that scheme will not be put in front of the Committee upstairs. It has only to show "as far as practicable" what number of undertakings will

be affected. No real details of the scheme are to be given. Nothing is to be said as to the number of pits of any company that are to be taken over and what they are to get in pounds, shillings, and pence on that account. You cannot say how it is going to affect a particular district within a given area. We have been told that notice has to be given in a newspaper. Yorkshire is a big place. Suppose a little pit is to be closed in one corner of that huge area. Is it sufficient to give notice by publishing the fact in the "Yorkshire Post"? Will that particular area know at the time of the Provision Order what is to be the particular effect on that little area within the greater area of Yorkshire?
The point I want to emphasise is that although this procedure is an improvement on the Bill as first introduced, the really vital thing that ought to be discussed cannot be discussed under the Provisional Order, circumscribed as it is within the terms of the Bill. As to the five commissars, for that is what they seem to me to be, they can do what they like when they have got the Order. The only thing that we can discuss upstairs is whether the number of undertakings in an area are such as to prevent the economic working of the pits.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the first part of the proposed Amendment? If what the hon. Member says is correct it would exempt them from giving details, but if they are making a recommendation they will make that recommendation upon a report, and it is to be assumed that that report will go into some detail as to the reasons for the amalgamations in a particular area. I should not like the hon. Member's statement to go forward that the Commission will be exempted from the necessity of presenting that report in some detail

Mr. Holdsworth: I am very doubtful whether the report is bound to contain the details of the scheme. All they have to do is to declare that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of coalmining undertakings should be reduced in the area. There is nothing to make it an obligation that the report should contain all the details.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is the proviso.

Mr. Holdsworth: The proviso simply defines the area. I want the Provisional


Order procedure upstairs to be really effective in examining the schemes. I want to have it on record that the details of a scheme can be examined upstairs and objected to if necessary. It is the details which will decide whether the scheme is fair or otherwise to those whose business will be affected. At the moment I am impressed by the fact that there is very little need to give any details of a scheme which can be discussed upstairs which would enable one to form an adequate judgment as to whether a scheme of compulsory amalgamation should be allowed or not.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I agree with a good deal of the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), but in regard to the latter part of his speech I suggest that the original trouble in regard to the procedure as it appeared in the Bill was that until the scheme had been worked out in detail and was more or less ready to be presented to the House and then to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, there was no method by which any undertaking or any local authority or any workmen's organisation could know whether or not they were to be affected by a scheme. It is true that everybody who may be affected has the prospect of having their rights thrashed out in minute detail before the Railway and Canal Commission. That still obtains, but the definite lacuna in the procedure was that there was no preceding stage at which people who were to be affected would know that they were to be affected, and would not have an opportunity of showing that there was no good ground for them to be included in a compulsory amalgamation. That lacuna seems to me to be filled up by this procedure.
It still involves a Provisional Order which is to indicate the area and the units which may be involved in an amalgamation. That is perfectly true, but I do not think it is necessary that the Provisional Order should give full details of the ultimate scheme which is going before the Railway and Canal Commission. If there is anything like that we shall have one inquiry in the House into the details, and a second inquiry later on by the Railway and Canal Commission. We do not want that. What we want to

know is who are going to be affected, what areas are going to be affected and what interests are involved, and we want the representatives of all these interests to have the fullest opportunity of making their case why they should not be affected. That is what the Amendment, in fact, does. It fills up that gap. I am the last person to suggest that Provisional Order procedure is cheap, but I do suggest that to give a right to make recommendations to the Commission and to leave it to the Commission whether they shall accept a recommendation or not is perfectly useless when big and vital interests are involved. You must have something more substantial than that. If there is a possibility of a pit being closed, those interested should have a chance of appearing before some body to argue their point and of saying everything that can be said against the pit being closed down. What is the use of sending protests or recommendations to a tribunal which might conceivably—I do not say they would—put them in the wastepaper basket?
There are only two alternatives. There is a public inquiry before an independent judicial officer, at which all the parties can appear in exactly the same way as they do before a Select Committee of this House, probably with exactly the same counsel and solicitors as would appear in a Committee room upstairs. Then there is the inquiry in Committee upstairs and between the two there is nothing in it on the question of expense. An independent public inquiry in the country is just as long and just as expensive to everybody concerned as an inquiry in Committee upstairs, but as between the two on a matter of national importance, on a matter of vital importance to the area concerned, to the individual colliery concerned and to the workmen concerned, surely the right tribunal is a tribunal in this House, where we shall know what is going on and have a complete record of what transpires. I suggest that the Amendment genuinely carries out the undertaking given. It fills the lacuna in procedure which I criticised rather forcibly. There is now a prospect of persons affected getting early notice and having a chance before a proper tribunal of putting their case why they should not be brought into a compulsory amalgamation. The details afterwards can go before the Railway and Canal Commission.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to discuss the general principles of the Amendment, as I have expressed my views on the matter already. I rise to call attention to one narrow point. This House in debating an Amendment does to some extent give a meaning to the words which we assume will govern people who afterwards have to carry out a Bill. I hope it will not be assumed that the Commission will have discharged its duties merely by making a report which defines the area in which amalgamation is to be made. A little more than an outline is necessary if we are to form any judgment as to the merits of the scheme. The Amendment says:
Provided that any such provisional order shall so define the area in which the said powers are to become exerciseable as to show so far as practicable what undertakings are likely to be affected.
In other words, if the Commission think that sufficient progress is not being made in the production of coal they will have to show why progress is not being made, and why the standard tonnage of the area is permanently in excess of the allocation which the area receives, and that it is likely to be in excess for a long time. They will have to show, also, that the excess of standard tonnage as against allocation has a bearing on A, B, or C company, and that particular collieries in the area might quite easily be closed down and their output transferred to other indicated undertakings. All these details should be included so that we may be able to envisage the situation in the area after the amalgamation has been carried out.

Mr. Holdsworth: I agree that such details should be shown, but is there any legal obligation that they should be shown? My point is this. Very often there are discussions as to what Parliament meant in an Act of Parliament, and Judges reply that it does not matter what Parliament meant; it is what the law says. There is no obligation on the Commission to give these particulars.

Mr. Stanley: It is clear under the new procedure before a Select Committee that the onus is now on the Government and on the Commission to prove their case, and probably they will have expensive counsel to do that. Unless they are prepared to produce before the Committee

all the things which have led them to their conclusions, they fail to prove their case.

Mr. Bevan: I am certain that it would be unreasonable for the actual instrument of amalgamation to be before the Committee upstairs. The financial relationships between various sets of shareholders are not matters with which the Committee upstairs can conceivably be interested.

Mr. Holdsworth: Surely we want everybody to have fair representation upstairs. How can a man who is the owner of a pit in an area object to an amalgamation unless he knows the details?

Mr. Bevan: I am concerned only whether amalgamation is good or bad in the public interest, and in the interests of the community in the area. The law is quite clear. The individual whose property is to be transferred or compensated is amply protected by the law, and he will be able to put his case before the Railway and Canal Commission, and it is certain that when the actual instrument is before the Railway and Canal Commission many of the considerations which are in the hon. Member's mind will be given full weight in the decision of the Railway and Canal Commission. What I am concerned about is that we ought not to allow it to be assumed that there is no obligation upon the Coal Commission to prove its case. There is an obligation. There is an obligation to indicate what colliery undertakings will be affected, what pits will actually be closed down in any amalgamation, what will be the effect upon the community in the area, and how the employment of the men in the area will be affected by any amalgamation. All those considerations belong to what I call the framework of the scheme, they belong to the national interest that the Committee upstairs must consider. I hope that the House will agree with me in reading a liberal interpretation into the language of the Amendment, so that we can be sure that the report from the Commission will provide us with all the information which will enable the Committee to form its judgment.

5.16 p.m.

Colonel R. S. Clarke: While thanking the Minister for his Amendment, there is one point that I should like to be sure about. Clause 41 as it stands directs that


the powers given to apply an Order approved by Parliament are
exercisable either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
but in the Amendment these words are omitted. It seems to me that by this Amendment the Order would define an area in which the powers would be exercisable, and the Select Committee would be presented with a kind of picture frame, but with very little indication of what the picture was going to be. They would get something from the report, but probably during the course of the proceedings of the Select Committee there would be representations from local authorities and other people of that kind, and they would want to make some sort of correction as to what the picture should be. But as the Amendment stands to-day it appears to me that they would not be able to insist on these conditions or to specify them in the Order. Further, by the Amendment the Commissioners would have power to vary the Order provided they did not go outside the area, and if they wanted to vary it, they would not have to submit the question to the Select Committee for it to decide whether or not it was in the interests of the nation. I am without legal training, and I may be misreading the Amendment, but I should be very grateful for the Minister's assurance that my fears in this connection are unfounded.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I am very disappointed at the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade. Both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage we put forward claims that certain interests should be allowed to make representations to the Commissioners on this question of amalgamation. I am one of those who strongly support compulsory amalgamation. That does not mean that I would support it everywhere, but there is a case for compulsory amalgamation in some parts of the British coalfield, and it is because of such cases that this Bill has been brought forward. It is because voluntary amalgamations have failed that the Government have taken upon themselves to put this Clause in the Bill. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is going back on what he put in the original Bill. I know that there is a case for some persons interested in a certain colliery to

raise objections to amalgamation—we have had that in Lancashire—but at the same time I think there is a better way of doing it than this, which is a dilatory method. It is no use the President saying that it is not as dilatory as some other methods; I consider that this is a dilatory method.
The right hon. Gentleman must consider our point of view as regards the local authorities. The case that we put to him on the Committee stage was that there would be instances in which the local authority involved in an amalgamation would desire to make representations to somebody somewhere, and I want to know from the President to what extent the social consequences of amalgamation are involved by this Amendment. From my reading of the Amendment, it makes provision only for industrial representation. The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is a very costly procedure for local authorities, and in my area I can see, before very long, a possible compulsory amalgamation, and I can see a very poor local authority involved m it. If this Amendment goes through, that authority will have to engage very expensive legal representatives to put its case, and I think we ought to find a cheaper method of enabling local authorities to put their objections.
The Miners' Federation of Great Britain will look upon this concession to the coal-owners, to those who are opposed to compulsory amalgamation, as an attempt to make that part of the Bill ineffective. After all, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as the Secretary for Mines knows still better, at the consultation that took place with the Miners' Federation representatives, whose President was a member of the Commission and knew the difficulties of compulsory amalgamation, the federation viewed that Bill with some approval, largely because it had this element of compulsory amalgamation in it. I do not want the Amendment accepted, for this simple reason, that I think it is an attempt to meet the wishes of the opponents of compulsory amalgamation. It pretends to keep compulsory amalgamation in the Bill, but at the same time it makes it ineffective, or at least it delays the procedure; and I hope the Government will make it quite clear that if this Amendment is carried, every interest involved in an amalgamation shall


be allowed to make representations before the Select Committee.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I shall support the Amendment very gladly, and since various charges have been levelled against Members of this House who propose to support it, I should like to make my own position perfectly clear. It has been said that this Amendment is prompted by opposition to the principle of compulsory amalgamation. So far as I am concerned, there is no such motive in my mind. I know absolutely nothing about the coalmining industry, but I have heard enough in the House to realise that compulsory amalgamation is an extremely controversial subject. I can imagine that it may be good in some cases and bad in others, but my own knowledge of the coal industry is so small that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the subject at all. Therefore, it is in no way opposition to the principle of compulsory amalgamation that made me press for an Amendment of this kind and now makes me welcome its introduction by my right hon. Friend.
I ground myself entirely on the point of principle, which is this: I can quite understand that if a body is appointed by the State to alter the conditions under which a great industry is carried on, it could say that certain undertakings shall be amalgamated with others. The State is fully entitled to do that without consultation, provided it is prepared to bear all the consequences itself. If the course proposed is nationalisation, and if the State is going to take responsibility for what happens after the amalgamation is carried out, then I do not see that the enterprises involved who are taking no responsibility once the change has been carried out, have anything to complain of. But that is not what is proposed in this Bill, which is that the Government shall come in, that a body appointed by the Government shall say that amalgamation in one place or another is desirable, and that, when that amalgamation is carried out, the responsibility shall be thrown back on to private enterprise for dealing with its own business in conditions which have been created for it. That seems to be absolutely unfair, unless the private enterprise which is to be responsible for the results of the amalgamation can be fully heard before the

amalgamation is carried out. Surely that is a clear point of principle, and it is on that point that I take my stand.
I am bound to say that I am influenced by what I have heard said in the Debate to-day about the cost of these proceedings, and I think it would be desirable that the cost should be alleviated, particularly for impecunious local authorities, if that could be done, but if there is to be an inquiry anywhere, is it not always going to be an expensive inquiry?

Mr. Shinwell: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we never asked for a public inquiry. We asked for the right of both local authorities and workers in the industry to make representations to the Commissioners, that they should be heard, and that their views should be properly considered.

Sir E. Grigg: I should have thought that if the Commission were going to inquire fully into the desirability of any proposed wholesale amalgamation, the Committee would have to hear counsel from the various interests concerned, and indeed, it is would be very difficult, from my experience of the legal profession, to keep them out. I fancy that they would be gathered there. If, however, there is any method of cheapening the procedure for local authorities and so on, I am bound to say that I should support it, but it seems to me that that is extremely difficult to do. At any rate, let me repeat that it is purely on the ground of principle that I was among those who originally asked for an Amendment of this kind and that I welcome it now, and I refuse to be accused, in supporting the Amendment, of interested motives of any kind.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I say a word to the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who has made one of his usually interesting speeches? He described the Commission as five commissars and was shocked at the idea of such a body, but does he know the origin of this Commission? He belongs to the Liberal party. I was not in this House at the time, but I was in the Miners' Federation, and outside I took a very intimate part in the passing of the 1930 Act. That Act contained, to begin with, a most important part dealing with quotas, and the then Liberal party told


the then Labour Government, "We snail never vote for this Bill unless you put into it a Clause setting up a Commission to bring about compulsory amalgamation." Therefore, actually this Commission, to which the hon. Member objects in this Bill, was in the 1930 Bill as a result of the political pressure, or rather the political threats, of the party to which the hon. Member belongs. We did not originally ask for this Commission. It was forced upon us by the Liberal party at the time, and now in 1938 they object to it. It is so characteristic of them; they are continuously and for ever burying their own children. Now the hon. Members throws that Commission overboard.
I do not think it is appropriate at the moment to discuss the principle of amalgamation. I have expressed my views on that subject upon previous occasions and those views have been drawn, very largely, from experience. Amalgamations may be either good or bad. It depends on what they are, and what they are for, and sometimes on who carries them out. The district to which I belong is one of the best coal areas in the world—certainly the best anthracite area in this country—and much harm has been done to the industry there by people who have no experience of the technical side of coal-mining and who are concerned only with finance—the kind of people who have been described as "industrial bookies." People of that kind have been responsible for bad amalgamations. But there can be amalgamations of another kind designed for technical purposes and in order to make the working of the coal more efficient. We shall welcome or reject amalgamations from that standpoint.
Let me remind hon. Members that we have pleaded in this House on many occasions for protection against the consequences of voluntary amalgamations. Hon. Members opposite wax eloquent about the consequences of compulsory amalgamation but they are silent about the consequences of voluntary amalgamation. Those consequences are the same. Indeed, the consequences of voluntary amalgamation can be even worse than those of compulsory amalgamation because when you bring in the compulsory element you also bring in a certain measure of social control. We are

setting up this Commission. Do not let us be too anxious to deprive that Commission of real power in these matters. I think the most important power which they will have under this Bill in planning the future of the industry will be the power of administering the coal as a national property, and if there is to be amalgamation of undertakings, it is essential that there should be the largest possible measure of social and public control over such amalgamation.
It is only right and fair, if these amalgamations involve a burden on the public, that the public who have to carry that burden should have a voice in them. We have then to ask ourselves whether the method proposed here of dealing with the matter is the best one. These Clauses have been phrased by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite and we have to examine them as laymen in order to try to find out what this procedure means. As we read this Clause, it would give power to all local interests, to miners, local authorities and owners, to make representations to the Commission. But what we have visualised has not been a Commission sitting in London, with the representatives from various areas coming before it. Rather have we visualised a Commission going round the various areas, meeting the local representatives on the spot, and seeing for themselves some of the consequences of amalgamation.

Mr. Stanley: I would not like the hon. Member to get the impression that the Commission are not going to see things for themselves, on the spot. Being reasonable people they will, of course, do so.

Mr. Griffiths: In any case, the procedure proposed here is that there shall be a Select Committee. Will those whose interests are likely to be affected, be heard by that Select Committee? For example, will the Miners' Federation and the local authorities be entitled to make their representations? Then there is to be a provisional Order, declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of undertakings in a certain area should be reduced. If a scheme is put forward, it will come from the Commission and will go before the Select Committee and it will propose that in a certain area, say South Wales or Durham,


the number of undertakings shall be reduced. What interpretation is to be given to the word "undertaking"? Is undertaking equivalent to company? I can imagine an interpretation of that word which would prevent, either the Select Committee or those who appear before it, from getting full particulars of the kind which they want. If the Commission simply say that in South Wales, company A and company B shall be amalgamated, that will not be much.
The important thing is to know what is likely to happen after amalgamation has taken place, and we should have an assurance that, if particulars are to be filed in these cases, they will include not merely the undertakings, in the sense of companies, which are amalgamated, but also particulars of the individual collieries concerned. Unless full particulars are given, there will be no public safeguard, and I regret that the Minister has not found it possible to accept our Amendment in that respect. At the same time I do not want to see amalgamations of undertakings of this kind without those who propose the amalgamations having to go before some body to prove their case and show how they propose to deal with the consequences of their amalgamation. I am concerned about the measure of social and public control which will be possible over these amalgamations. I welcome this proposal, but I should like the Minister to deal with one or two of the points I have raised because the value of the Clause seems to depend in no small measure upon the interpretation given to these words.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I cannot imagine that the representatives of the miners in any locality would have any difficulty in establishing before a Committee upstairs the right to be heard. Judging from the various people who appear from time to time before Committees upstairs, the question of status in that respect is interpreted sensibly and intelligently, and I do not think that that problem is likely to arise. But whether the representatives themselves would rather come to London for the hearing, or remain, for instance, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is debatable.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Croydon inquiry was held in Croydon.

Mr. Williams: My own experience is that if people are asked whether they would rather give their evidence at a local inquiry or come to London, they are generally in favour of a week-end in London. Visits to London in connection with the promoting of local Bills are quite popular.

Mr. Shinwell: And very costly.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said a great many things with which I agree. He and I share certain views on these matters. Neither of us believes very much in the modern theory of political economy under which people are forced to do things which they are unwilling to do, for some reason which nobody can explain. I do not like compulsory amalgamation and I am not much impressed by voluntary amalgamation. It is not as if those great enterprises which have been amalgamated are, in the main, very successful. The railways were compulsorily amalgamated and they have been in rather a mess since. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, I do not think it can be denied that they are in a mess. Cables and Wireless cannot pay their dividend, and we heard last week that the air companies were not having a very happy time, while as for the London Passenger Transport Board there are constant complaints about the service—

Mr. Bevan: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the principle of amalgamation is under discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Certainly not. We are discussing only the particular form of procedure which is to be adopted in relation to these amalgamations, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) must not go into a general discussion on the principle of amalgamation.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry. I was mentioning only casually and by way of illustration certain examples. I should be out of order if I were to go into the details of those four cases, but hon. Gentleman opposite have argued that compulsory amalgamation is desirable and I am giving some illustrations of the bad results which have followed from compulsory amalgamation. The hon. Member for South Bradford has dominated this Debate and has drawn attention with


some precision to what is proposed here. First of all, the Commission have their own investigation and then they present a report to the President of the Board of Trade, who, in due course, makes a Provisional Order declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that certain things should happen. Then apparently we are to have an unusual form of Bill, namely, a Bill to confirm an Order, when the Order itself does not propose that anything in particular should be done but merely states, in general terms, that it is expedient to do those things. It is rather like making a Provisional Order that it is expedient that all the bachelors in this House should get married and then putting into the Bill that they are not to know the brides. There was a Debate some time ago, in which all the bachelors took part, urging an increase in the population, and that is probably what led my thoughts in that direction. Anyhow, I ask hon. Members to read these words:
The Provisional Order shall so define the area … as to show so far as practicable what undertakings are likely to be affected.
"Affected" may mean that this undertaking is to survive and the other is not, but there is no indication of which is to survive and which is to die. Therefore on what basis are these people who come before the Select Committee to make their representations? If I am a Member for a South Wales constituency, there may be certain pits in my constituency and others near by, in an adjoining constituency. It may be proposed that the pits in that area should be brought into a scheme, but I will not have the faintest idea of whether the pits in my constituency or those in the next constituency are to be selected. It is going to be very difficult for the Select Committee to examine anything as vague as that. It is like the "South Sea Bubble." What will the Provisional Order declare? It will declare that it is expedient that all collieries, say in the Rhondda Valley, within certain limits shown on a certain plan, should be looked into with a view to certain amalgamations. No scheme is worked out; there is no proposal as to a holding company being formed or as to terms; there is no declaration as to what pits it is proposed to close, indeed no indication of any kind as to what the scheme is to be.

Mr. Bevan: But does the hon. Member suggest that a Select Committee would be dumb enough to pass a scheme without any of those particulars?

Mr. Williams: But that is just what we are asking them to do. A Provisional Order is to be made declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that a number of coal-mining undertakings shall be dealt with in this way. In other words what we are doing by this Bill is to provide for the passing of subsidiary Acts of Parliament of an enabling kind, and not for authorising Provisional Orders which set forth the schemes. To me it is an extraordinary procedure, but I like it better than the original scheme, because it does interpose one barrier of public opinion and of democracy between us and what the hon. Member for South Bradford has called the commissars. The procedure is most extraordinary and, as far as I know, entirely novel; I do not think there has ever been a case where a Provisional Order Bill contained merely a general aspiration and not a detailed scheme. I hope my right hon. Friend will examine the point very carefully. We cannot make any changes now, but the Bill will have to go through another place, and I hope that in another place, with the help of my right hon. Friend, they will define with much greater particularity what things will be in the Provisional Order. I think the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for South Bradford for having drawn attention to this aspect of the matter.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: One or two important points upon which there appears to be some misunderstanding have been raised in the Debate. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well) concerning the impossibility of introducing Provisional Orders after Whitsuntide, I understand that it is on that point that a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment is to be moved, and therefore, I will not refer to it now. I should like to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I think the hon. Member for South Bradford can find his spiritual home only in company with the hon. Member for East Croydon—

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that East Croydon is a railway station and not a constituency?

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry to have mistaken anything so dynamic as my hon. Friend for anything so static as a railway station. The hon. Member for South Bradford and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) are almost entitled to be called the Liberal party. The hon. Member for South Bradford raised the very important point as to what sort of information the Select Committee would have and what sort of things they would discuss. Let me make it plain at once that I do not want any hon. Member to support this Amendment under a misapprehension. There is no intention that the details of the scheme, that is to say, the financial provisions of the scheme, shall be before the House of Commons. The whole idea of the Bill is to take away from the Railway and Canal Commission questions of public interest and to leave to it the question of finance. I believe that to be the right solution, and I think the last people who would thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion that the financial details of the scheme should be taken away from the Railway and Canal Commission and come to the Houses of Parliament, are the people who are concerned. I understand they put forward the view that it is the Railway and Canal Commission which should be empowered to discuss this.
The other point put by the hon. Member was more important, and concerned the question of what the Select Committee would be able to discuss even on the points of national interest. It is true that there is a Statutory duty upon the President of the Board of Trade to lay before the House the report which is made by the Commission, but that, of course, is not the real safeguard. The real safeguard is that the President of the Board of Trade, who has made the Order, and the Commission, who have made the recommendation to the President of the Board of Trade, would have to prove their case. It would be no good their coming to the House and to the Select Committee, and saying, "We think it is a good thing that there should be an amalgamation in that area." Neither the House nor, particularly, the Select Committee, would stand that for a moment.

The representatives of the Board of Trade or of the Commission would have to appear before the Select Committee and say why they thought it was a good thing, and why they thought that an amalgamation in a certain district would lead to a saving and to more economic or better working. It seems to me that it would be impossible for them to do that without giving to the Committee an outline of what they themselves thought would be the results of the amalgamation. Therefore, I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that either the Board of Trade and the Commission would give to the Select Committee all the information for which it asked, or the Select Committee would say that they had not even attempted to prove their case, and would throw the case out.
The hon. Member for Seaham raised the question of who would appear before the Select Committee. As he knows, the final determination as to who may appear is in the hands of the Court of Referees, and I can no more bind them than I can bind Mr. Speaker as to whether or not an Amendment shall be called. However, from all I know of the practice of the Select Committee, and from what I can judge—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon—it is inconceivable that in such a question of national interest any of the bodies to whom the hon. Member referred could be judged to have no concern. Certainly, there would be no obligation on them to appear, but it is always open to them to appear in person or to be represented by counsel.

Mr. Shinwell: What possible chance would they have?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member is in great difficulty. I know that he likes difficulties and takes them easily, but the truth of the matter is that although he is complaining about this procedure he knows that the object which the local authorities and the people for whom he speaks would have in turning up before the Select Committee would be to oppose the Bills.

Mr. David Grenfell: Or to obtain assurances.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member asked what chance they would have to brief expensive counsel. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East


Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that he had never been briefed by the Mining Association. When the hon. Member for Sea-ham asks what chance the local authorities would have of briefing equally good counsel, he knows very well that, in practice, before the Select Committee, the local authority and the Mining Association would be on the same side. [An HON. MEMBER: "For different reasons."] I think that, in practice, there is no doubt that the bodies which the hon. Gentleman is anxious should appear before the Select Committee will, in fact, have an opportunity of doing so. One or two specific points were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke). The sinister change to which he referred of the omission of those particular words is necessitated merely by the change in the form of procedure. Whereas before we would not have been entitled to attach conditions to the Order, but the Order would have had to be approved or not by the House, now the House can make alterations, and therefore there is no necessity any longer to give that power to the Board of Trade. I am afraid that I could not follow the other point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, because, as far as I am aware, the Commission is not given the power to vary the Order subsequent to its having been approved by Parliament. I think I have answered the main points that have been raised in the Debate, and as a manuscript Amendment is to be moved on the specific point, I hope it will now be possible to conclude the discussion on the main points, and proceed to discuss the manuscript Amendment which is to be moved.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

5.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add:
(5) Notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of either House of Parliament, proceedings to confirm a Provisional Order made under this Section may be commenced at any time when Parliament is sitting.
I think the need for this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is clear. At

the present time, under the Rules of both Houses, it is not possible to introduce a Provisional Order after Whitsuntide, and that means that practically half of the year would pass without there being an opportunity for any Order under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to be introduced.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.57 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The Amendment to the proposed Amendment deals with a small point which has arisen in the course of the Debate, and I will make the situation as clear as I can. I would remark, in passing, that there is an interesting difference of views on the benches opposite; there are those who do not want these matters even to be discussed, and now the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) is very nervous because he finds that under the Standing Orders there is a period of time during which it would not be possible for a Provisional Order to be introduced.

Mr. Ede: Do not say the hon. Member is nervous; say that he is anxious.

Captain Crookshank: The present position is that, according to Standing Order No. 204, no Bill can originate unless it is read the First time before Whitsun. There is a similar Standing Order in another place. On occasion, it is possible for that Standing Order to be waived, by a Motion made by the Chairman in this House and the Chairman in another place, if they are in agreement, on a particular Bill. What is fundamentally wrong with the Amendment to the Amendment is that it seeks by legislation to alter the Standing Orders of the two Houses. Even if that were agreed to in this House, judging from the history of the Standing Orders in both Houses, I have very grave doubts whether the other House would allow it.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong as to the intention of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is submitted in order to prove that the proposed Amendment for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is responsible, and which has not yet been definitely disposed of, is in itself ineffective, in that it does not permit these matters to be dealt with except during a limited period of the year.

Captain Crookshank: I do not know what the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is intended to prove. What I understand is that, since under Standing Order 204 Provisional Order Bills cannot be introduced unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Chairmen of both Houses move the suspension of the Standing Order, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) wishes to have a new Sub-section in this Clause specifically referring to this Standing Order, and beginning "Notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order." What I am trying to put to the House is an old argument, because both Houses are very jealous of their own powers of regulating their own procedure themselves and not having it done for them by Statute. That is the fundamental difficulty which has always existed, and I think every hon. Member recognises it. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment would be very annoyed, and would consider it a breach of privilege, if the other House sent down to us, a Bill to which it had given a Third reading containing some reference to our altering our Standing Orders without, at any rate, having received preliminary consent to it.

Mr. Jenkins: Was the Minister conscious of this difficulty when he introduced his Amendment?

Captain Crookshank: The answer is "Yes." It is against the traditions of either House to deal with Standing Orders by legislation. That is the first difficulty we have to meet. Now the hon. Gentleman says that unless we can get over Standing Order 204 there will be a long period during which it will be impossible to introduce a Provisional Order. The answer is that this is not the first time that Provisional Order procedure has been introduced in this House, and that in the past there has been no great difficulty in that regard. It is, I think, only fair to say that one does not anticipate—I may be wrong, of course—that these Orders will be a matter of such supreme urgency at any given moment. After all, the Commission are charged with the function of seeing the whole picture, as we have been providing in this Amendment, and laying a report before the Board of Trade, and so on, and it will not be a matter of life and death whether it is done this month or next month.
I recognise the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, and my answer is that we cannot accept his proposal for the reasons which I hope I have made clear, namely, that we cannot by legislation touch the privileges of the other House in regard to the way in which it conducts its business. As hon. Gentlemen opposite consider this matter of sufficient importance, I propose that we should look into it further. My right hon. Friend and I are prepared to consult with the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman, and the officials of both Houses, to see whether, if this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is accepted, it would be necessary to ask either House to make some Amendment in the Standing Orders in order that our intentions should not be brought to nought and that there should not be this gap. We will consult with the properly constituted authorities in both Houses in order to see whether this difficulty is as acute a difficulty as the hon. Gentleman fears it is, and, if it is, whether it would be right for new Standing Orders in due course to be promoted.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman really knew that this difficulty existed—of if he is not prepared to accept the word "difficulty," I would say this probable difficulty—it is very strange that no reference was made to the matter in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not making anything of that point. I made no reference to the details of the Provisional Order procedure because I took it that hon. Members in all parts of the House knew what it was, and what its implications were. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had no sinister intentions in not referring to it.

Mr. Shinwell: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his proposed Amendment is an alternative to the proposals which were put to him from this side on the Committee stage, and if in his Amendment such a difficulty occurs—it is a very important difficulty—it ought either to have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to mention it, or, in lieu of that, since an assurance has now been given, it should have been treated


as a point of substance. The assurance that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given is not specific enough to warrant our accepting the proposed Amendment.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if there is one thing which is undesirable it is to complicate our Standing Orders so as to have them apply to some forms of legislation and not to others. We shall never know where we are if Provisional Orders affecting the coal industry can be introduced at any time and other Provisional Orders must be introduced before Whitsun. It would create a chaotic situation. My hon. Friend has directed the attention of the House to an important matter, although this Bill is not the instrument by which a reform can be effected. We have now a concentration of an enormous amount of private Bill legislation into a certain time of the year, and if all these other Provisional Orders are to come forward at one time of the year it will impose a great strain on the members of the Parliamentary Bar.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: Do not worry about that.

Mr. Bevan: I was about to point out that the Parliamentary Bar do not worry about it because, owing to the concentration of the demand on their services at one time of the year they are able to extract far higher fees. I have never heard members of the Parliamentary Bar complaining

about this procedure. We, however, have some cause for complaint about it. It means a strain on those Members of the House who have to sit upon these Select Committees, and if the Orders can be spread out it would be better. Perhaps it would be possible, whenever it is proposed to bring a Provisional Order forward, for the Lord Chairman in the other place and his appropriate counterpart here to come to an agreement to enable it to be brought forward. In 1930 there were proposals exempted from the Standing Orders and they were brought forward by the Lord Privy Seal. Owing to the Standing Orders of the House certain Orders concerning railway developments, involving loans, could not be proceeded with except at a certain time in the year, but they were temporarily exempted from the limitations of this Standing Order in order that the schemes could be brought forward at any time of the year, in order to deal with the emergency of unemployment which then existed. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from bringing forward a proposal, when he is presented with the possibility of a Provisional Order, that it should be exempted from the Standing Orders. If that is done it will meet the main substance of the point that has been raised.

Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 196.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hayday, A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adamson, W. M.
Day, H.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dobbie, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Ammon, C. G.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Attles, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, J. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Barnes, A. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Barr, J.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, J.
Foot, D. M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bevan, A.
Frankel, D.
Kirby, B. V.


Broad, F. A.
Gallacher, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Bromfield, W.
Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, F.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leonard, W.


Cape, T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leslie, J. R.


Cassells, T.
Grenfell, D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lunn, W.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cluse, W. S.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McGhee, H. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mander, G. la M.


Cove, W. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.


Daggar, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)




Naylor, T. E.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Tinker, J. J.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Tomlinson, G.


Oliver, G. H.
Sexton, T. M.
Viant, S. P.


Paling, W.
Shinwell, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Parker, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Walker, J.


Parkinson, J. A.
Simpson, F. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Watson, W. McL.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
White, H. Graham


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Ridley, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Riley, B.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, C.



Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thorne, W.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Radford, E. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ramsbotham, H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rankin, Sir R.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Apsley, Lord
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Assheton, R.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Balniel, Lord
Hambro, A. V.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rowlands, G.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, Sir Alexander


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bracken, B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salt, E. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Savery, Sir Servington


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holdsworth, H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, L W. (Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hunter, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Keeling, E. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Channon, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lees-Jones, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leighton, Major B. E. P
Storey, S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lewis, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Critchley, A.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McKie, J. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Maitland, A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cross, R. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Crowder, J. F. E.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Culverwell, C. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


De la Bère, R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wells, S. R.


Dodd, J. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Doland, G. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morgan, R H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emery, J. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Everard, W. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Fildes, Sir H.
Patrick, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peake, O.
Captain Dugdale and




Mr. Grimston.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 119.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Radford, E. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsbotham, H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rankin, Sir R.


Assheton, R.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hambro, A. V.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bernays, R. H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Higgs, W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Carver, Major W. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spens, W. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Critchley, A.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tate, Mavis C.


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, J. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Maitland, A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De la Bère, R.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dodd, J. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Doland, G. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wells, S. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morgan, R. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Palmer, G. E. H.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Perkins, W. R. D.
James Edmondson.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Day, H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Debbie, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cassells, T.
Ede, J. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chater, D.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Fool, D. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Frankel, D.


Barr, J.
Cove, W. G.
Gallacher, W.


Batey, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Gardner, B. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Bevan, A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Bromfield, W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grenfell, D. R.




Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mander, G. le M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Hardie, Agnes
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayday, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stephen, C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Thorne, W.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tomlinson, G.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, A. G.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walker, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Watkins, F. C.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.
Ridley, G
Watson, W. McL.


Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.
White, H. Graham


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lee, F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Leonard, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leslie, J. R.
Saltar, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)



Logan, D. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


McEntee, V. La T.
Shinwell, E.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and procedure of the Coal Commission.)

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 46, line 19, to leave out "a member, or."
This and the next Amendment, which go together, deal with a point which was raised in Committee by, I think, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). As the Bill stands now it would be impossible for someone who was an officer or servant or even a member of either of the organisations of the employers or of the workpeople in the coal-mining industry, to be made a member of the Commission. In Committee the hon. Member for Normanton moved an Amendment to delete that provision, and arguments were put forward to show that it was unfair to deprive someone who was to be made a member of this Commission of the membership of his trade union. The ground upon which I resisted the Amendment at the time was that I was, and still am, extremely anxious that there should be no suspicion whatever that any member of the Commission is biased in one direction or the other. It seemed to me important not only that the member should not be biased—and I assume that any individual who was chosen for this Commission would, in fact, be quite unprejudiced—but that nobody should be able to think or suspect that he was. For that reason I felt myself unable to accept the Amendment, and I am sorry to say that a daily newspaper afterwards referred to me as

"painfully obstinate." It was not painful to me.
During the Debate I said that I recognise the case that was made by several hon. Members opposite with regard to what I might call the ancillary part of trade unionism—the membership of benefit societies, and so on—and I promised to see whether it would be possible to devise an Amendment to meet that point. On looking into the matter, however, I found that it was impossible to devise any such Amendment, and, therefore, it seemed to me that the only fair thing I could do, in view of what I had said, was to delete the provision altogether, and make it possible for a member either of a trade union or of the Mining Association to be a member of the Commission. I was encouraged to take that course because Members from all sides of the House said they would not regard with any suspicion the fact that a member of the Commission retained his membership either of one organisation or the other, and I am sure that I can rely upon it, if the case ever did arise, that they would be the first to make it plain that suspicions of that kind were unworthy and should not be entertained.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 22, at the end, insert:
For the purposes of this paragraph membership of such an organisation as aforesaid shall not of itself be treated as constituting a direct connection with the coal-mining industry."—[Mr. Stanley.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to compensation payable under Section six of this Act.)

6.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 54, line 5, to leave out from "be," to the end of line 6, and to insert:
such number of the members of the Board as may be prescribed.
The reason for omitting the provision of a quorum of 10 is because, under Clause 6, paragraph 4, the actual numbers of the boards are outside the Bill, and as we do not know how many members there will be, it would be wrong to specify the number of the quorum.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 54, line 41, to leave out from "be," to the end of line 42, and to insert:
such number of the members of the Board as may be prescribed, and the rules may prescribe different numbers as respects different Regional Valuation Boards.
It was originally intended that there should be not less than three members, but since we made an alteration in the Committee that not all the valuers in the region should be on the board, but only such as the board may determine, that makes it uncertain whether, in some areas, there will be the right number. We might want different numbers in different areas to complete the board, and it would be better to do as we now suggest, and not to prescribe this matter by rule.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 55, line 17, after "Boards," to insert:
and to a referee appointed under this Schedule.
We omitted, by mistake, to make any reference to the payment of remuneration to the referees. It is clear that the referees ought to receive something for the services which they will render, and for which they will be paid in the same sort of way as the other bodies, that is to say, in amounts to be determined by the Board of Trade, and by payments to be made by the Commission. That is the effect of this Amendment, and of the consequential one a little later.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 55, line 17, after "and," to insert "such."
This Amendment and the following one are mere verbal alterations to show that in some cases these expenses could not really be determined on a scale. They might be paid, if it is right to do so, in another way.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 55, line 18, leave out "on such scale."

In line 21, after the first "Board," insert "and of a referee appointed under this Schedule."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 60, line 31, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if from any information in the possession of the Regional Valuation Board it appears to them that there is in the particulars so registered as aforesaid an error or omission of material importance for valuation purposes, they may, at any time before they have settled their draft valuation of the holding, notify the Commission that they are of that opinion and thereupon the said provisions shall again come into effect and, if any alteration is made thereunder in the particulars so registered as aforesaid, the valuation shall be made on the basis of the particulars as altered.
There is a little more substance in this new proviso. It may be, in the course of investigation of claim, that the regional valuation board might see an error in the particulars, or an omission, which they might think of material importance for valuation purposes. The Amendment makes it possible for them at any time before they have settled their draft valuation to notify the Commission of the error which they have seen. It would then be for the Commission, as the registration authority, to make the alteration. I am sure the House will realise that it is important to reach finality in these matters as soon as possible, and while there is no reason to suppose that the registration authority would leave out anything material or make a mistake, yet the regional valuation board are composed of mineral valuers who know the district, and they might possibly see some mistake. If so, it should be corrected at that stage, and that is where finality should rest.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from "purposes," to "notify," in line 4, and to insert:
or if in the course of proceedings before a referee acting in pursuance of the provisions


of this Schedule it is proved to the satisfaction of such referee that there is such an error or omission in such particulars the said Board or referee (as the case may be) may.
The object of this Amendment is twofold. The first object is to allow the regional valuation board to notify the Commission at any time of any error they discover, and not merely before they have settled their draft valuation. The second object is to allow a referee acting under this Schedule to make a like discovery and notification.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I cannot recommend the acceptance of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. In moving my Amendment, my concluding words were that we thought that finality was important, and should be reached at the stage where we have put it, that is to say, the stage of the Regional Valuation Board. The Government Amendment was framed on the theory that the Board, from its constitution, might conceivably notice an error or omission, and would therefore be the proper body to deal with it, and would do so in their own draft valuation which has to go forward. Now my hon. Friend asks me to take it a stage further, so that at any stage, even up to the referee, should an error be found, it would be possible to rectify it. As a matter of fact, the referee ex officio is not really concerned with the accuracy of the particulars. What he has to do is to make a decision on the valuation, and, if it is left as late as the stage when the matter comes before the referee, I am afraid that the gloomy forecast which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) made last night, that 3½ years would not be long enough, would certainly be true. I think we had better leave the finality in this matter with the Regional Valuation Board before they make their draft valuation, because they are the people who are actually likely from their own knowledge to be able to spot an error or omission.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Amendment made: In page 60, line 34, after "paragraph," insert:

,or, in the case of particulars that are altered after that date under the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph, those particulars as so altered."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 60, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(5) The estate owner in respect of a holding, in respect of which the payment of compensation under this Act is claimed, and all persons claiming under him and their successors in title respectively shall be estopped from asserting after the vesting date any matter adversely affecting the premises in which the holding subsisted, unless it is shown that there was furnished for the purposes of the Registration Act information of all the circumstances of the holding relevant to that matter, or, if it was a matter with respect to which the Commission or the Board of Trade gave such an indication as to the information material in their opinion for valuation purposes as is mentioned in Section thirty-one of this Act, such information with respect to that matter as was thereby indicated.
This is to provide that if a person is interested in a holding for which compensation has been paid, he should not afterwards—I hope no one will think I imagine it is likely to happen, but we must stop up the gap—be able to claim that the holding does not comprise something which, when he was making the claim, he said it did comprise; and, further, that he should not afterwards be able to say that that particular property is subject to some sort of servitude when, at the time when he was making his claim, that is to say, when the existence of the servitude or otherwise might make a difference, he did not disclose it.

Sir Stafford Cripps: This seems to us to be a very healthy suspicion of a class of people who ought to be so regarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 61, line 7, to leave out from "served," to the end of line 10, and to insert:
and, if it has not been delivered at the date on which notice of the registration of particulars in respect of the holding is given to the Regional Valuation Board, it must be delivered within such period as the board may specify by notice requiring delivery thereof served on the claimant after that date, so however that the period specified shall not be less than one month from the service of the notice requiring delivery thereof.
Under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Schedule as it stands, notice to the claimant and to the Regional Valuation Board has to be given with regard


to the registration of the holding within one month from the date when the claimant has to put in to the Regional Valuation Board an estimate of his holding. One does not want the Regional Valuation Board to be completely snowed under with work coming in at one moment, so that they cannot digest it; and, moreover, it may very well be, as has been pointed out, that a particular mineral agent might be working for several interests, and would have to deliver all these notices to all the different interests with whom he was concerned on the same day. The Amendment merely allows the Regional Valuation Board to have some say, in regulating the demands for estimates, as to the date when they can be sent in. It is purely a machinery Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

6.51 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 61, line 25, after "relates," to insert "wholly or partially."
This Amendment raises a point which we raised during the Committee stage, and the right hon. Gentleman told us that he would look into it. We think, however, that he has not looked into it successfully. Sub-paragraph (4) is intended to deal with cases where the valuation relates to a subsidiary coal hereditament only, and the procedure is to be different where it relates only to a coal hereditament. There must, however, be cases, as we understand it, unless the right hon. Gentleman can correct us, where the valuation includes both coal hereditaments and subsidiary coal hereditaments. In such a mixed case this procedure obviously ought to apply, but the words
if the valuation relates to subsidiary coal hereditaments
leave it doubtful whether the meaning is that it wholly relates or that it wholly or partially relates thereto. We imagine that it is intended to cover the case in which it relates wholly or partially, but, as at present drafted, it is not clear which is intended. Whether it be the one or the other, it is obviously necessary to make it clear which case it is intended to cover, and we suggest the insertion of the words "wholly or partially" in order to make it clear that, if you have a mixed claim, this procedure shall apply to such a mixed claim.

6.54 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): We have looked into this point, we hope successfully, and I hope to be able to satisfy the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words are not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Subsidiary hereditaments are only taken over if they are comprised in a coal mining lease, and, therefore, are accompanied by coal hereditaments. Clause 7 (2) lays it down quite clearly that the valuation will be both of the principal and of the subsidiary hereditament, but when we come to the compensation, it is split up. The valuation is of both, and, that being so, we think that the sub-paragraph clearly covers the case where there is a valuation of coal hereditaments and subsidiary hereditaments, because subsidiary hereditaments are never valued by themselves. The words "wholly or partially" would be inappropriate, because you never would get a valuation strictly confined to subsidiary hereditaments, and, when the later stage is reached where they are split up for compensation purposes under Clause 6, a valuation of the subsidiary compensation only can be made. The valuation under Clause 7 (2) is a valuation of both together, and, therefore, it is clear that, in any case where subsidiary coal hereditaments are included, the valuation notice will have to be given.

6.56 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Might I ask the Attorney-General whether that would mean that in such a case the valuation of the coal hereditament could be disputed in the manner set out in the last part of the sub-paragraph; that is to say, as regards the coal hereditament, would the parties be given the opportunity of being heard and so on? If, as the Attorney-General says, the valuation relates to both, can either part of the valuation be disputed? Is it possible for a claimant to say that he is content with the valuation of the subsidiary coal hereditament, but to dispute the valuation of the coal hereditament? Is it not intended that this procedure shall only relate to the subsidiary coal hereditament part of the holding? Supposing that the coal valuation is £10,000, and the subsidiary valuation £1,000, is it not intended that this procedure shall apply only to the £1,000 part? It seems to me that, as the words


stand, it would be possible for the claimant, while satisfied with the £1,000 part, to dispute the £10,000 part.

The Attorney-General: I think it is all right, but I will look into it. I think it is clear from the words that it is only if the valuation relates to a subsidiary hereditament that you give notice at all. The point is that the Commission are not interested in the value of coal hereditaments, because that simply relates to the division of the global sum, and therefore the Commission will have no motive to dispute that figure, which does not interest them. I think the Clause makes the matter clear, but I will certainly consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.57 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 61, line 30, after "heard," to insert "and of giving evidence."
This is another small point. As regards the question of hearing, sub-paragraph (4) states that the board shall give him or them an opportunity of being heard by, as it will now read, a person experienced in the valuation of mineral assets. In the case of a claimant in person, it seems to us that, if any value is to be attached to the inquiry, there must be an opportunity of asking that person questions. That opportunity will not arise if he only appears as an advocate and not as a witness, and, therefore, there should not only be an opportunity of his being heard as an advocate, but also an opportunity of his giving evidence on the point. Otherwise, there would be no means by which the board could get any evidence either from the Commission or from the other side, and they will merely have to decide on ex parte statements. When the subparagraph speaks of being heard by a competent mineral valuer or a person experienced in the valuation of minerals, it means that he is entitled to appear as counsel or solicitors might appear, and the board would hear that person, but it will not entitle anyone to bring evidence. It seems to us to be necessary to insert here a provision by which the parties desiring to be heard might bring what evidence they think desirable in order to assist the Regional Valuation Board. Whether these words are appropriate or not, some provision should be made for the parties to bring evidence before the

Regional Valuation Board. Otherwise, the board will only be discharging a rather useless function.

6.59 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I think that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is slightly exaggerating the importance of this particular stage. It is a rather informal stage. Perhaps I might remind him of the point at which we now are, because the Schedule is so complicated that it is very difficult to remember with which point one is dealing at any given moment. What occurs is that after July, 1939, the Commission pass on to the Regional Valuation Board the registration that has been effected, and at the same time they pass it on to the claimant and give him notice, and the claimant has to make an estimate himself to the Regional Valuation Board. The board looks at the estimate and makes a first draft of its award. At that stage the board has to give the claimant an opportunity of coming along and being heard before it makes its final valuation.
It is not really a sort of stage at which there is any question of giving evidence. The claimant makes his own valuation and the Regional Valuation Board makes its draft one, and then the claimant says, "I think you are wrong, it is not enough or it is too much," as the case may be, and suggests the reasons that he has for thinking it too low or too high. I do not think there is any necessity for talking in terms of evidence or witnesses, because it is an informal stage before the Board makes a firm valuation. If the claimant has a complaint about it he applies for a referee to consider it and then, of course, we are in a formal stage. It seems to me that this stage is in the nature of a conference between the Valuation Board and the claimant. It does not seem to me that, even if the claimant and the Board are in conflict, it needs witnesses, or even advocates, for either to understand what the other is saying.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: This is like the situation of an assessment committee for rating purposes. If a claimant appears before such a committee on their draft valuation he is entitled to bring evidence, and constantly does. The way to assist people to get a correct decision is to bring evidence along and not merely to argue it.


I should have thought that it was desirable to get an accurate decision at the earliest moment. It will get rid of an appeal to the referee altogether. The person who can give the evidence is there and, if he could give evidence, it would enable the other side to cross-examine him and elucidate the true facts. It is desirable to have some method of arriving at the earliest moment at the most accurate result. It would not complicate the matter enormously. If you do not provide this opportunity you are only encouraging appeals to the referee.

Mr. Spens: I should like to associate myself with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Captain Crookshank: I should have thought that the words in the paragraph covered what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. If the claimant disputes the figure, they would presumably ask, "What is your evidence?" Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that, if he were asked that question in an informal way, he could not answer? If that is what he fears, it is ridiculous.

Sir S. Cripps: Both sides will very likely be present and the mineral valuer for the Commission will make certain observations. I want the claimant to have an opportunity to ask him questions, and I want the person who appears for the Commission to test the evidence on the other side. That is the only way to arrive at a satisfactory decision.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not want an opportunity of bringing more people there? It is only that the people who are there anyhow shall be able to answer questions put by the Board?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.7 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 61, line 30, to leave out "competent mineral valuer," and to insert:
person experienced in the valuation of minerals or in the management of mineral estates.
This is a point that was raised indirectly at an earlier stage. There might be a number of these cases and the same mineral valuer might be acting for a large

number of properties. It would be physically impossible for him personally to deal with them all, because they might be in different parts of the country. It seems quite reasonable that some qualified person, an estate solicitor or someone of that kind, might be able to take this informal stage of the proceedings before the Regional Valuation Board. It may help to speed up the machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

7.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 61, line 31, at the end, to insert:
and where in the case aforesaid a hearing is required either by the Commission or the claimant the Board shall give to the other of them also an opportunity of being heard as aforesaid.
As the Schedule stands, the Commission, as well as the claimant, is given an opportunity of being heard against the draft valuation of a subsidiary coal hereditament, but it does not expressly say that, if the Commission claims to be heard, the claimant shall also have a right to appear, or vice versa. That is all the Amendment seeks to secure.

Sir S. Cripps: It is not clear from this that they shall be heard at the same time, but I imagine that is the intention, that there shall be a single hearing when both parties are present. I think the words "at the said hearing" would make the point clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 61, line 31, at the end, to insert:
The said notice to the claimant shall contain an intimation of his right to be so heard.
This is designed chiefly for the protection of small men. Such persons, even though they are supposed in law to have mastered every detail of the Act, may in fact be ignorant of the procedure laid down for their benefit. The Amendment will ensure that they are reminded of their right to be heard on the subject of the draft valuation.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 61, line 37, at the end, insert:
The said notice to the claimant or any person intervening shall contain an intimation


of the right of the person to whom it is given to have the valuation reviewed under the provisions of paragraph 12 of this Schedule."—[Mr. Keeling.]

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 61, line 46, to leave out from "them" to the end of the sub-paragraph.
This deals with the panel out of which the referees will be selected to hear an appeal against a valuation of a holding by the Regional Board. The Central Valuation Board will consist of mineral agents belonging to the various regional boards and it is extremely undesirable to have a referee who is himself a mineral agent and has already taken part in making valuations in other parts of the country arbitrating in an action brought against one of his colleagues. It is possible—I suppose it is much more than possible; it is easy—to obtain persons who are competent to do this work and act as arbitrators, and are not mineral agents. It may be necessary to have mineral agents as assessors, to assist the arbitrators in arriving at technical decisions, but surely it is not necessary for the arbitrators themselves to be mineral agents. It is possible that these mineral agents, knowing that they themselves may act as referees, will reach decisions in an arbitration on one claim in such a manner as will favour themselves in valuations they have reached on other claims.
It is true that, as the Schedule is drawn, a referee cannot be a member of a Regional Board whose valuation is disputed. Nevertheless, he knows the principles upon which he, himself, will have made a valuation. If he is acting as a referee, he will be tempted to make his decision in such a form as will favour the acceptance of his own valuation, should that be appealed against to some other member of the board. I think this business of what is vulgarly called back-scratching ought to be avoided. You ought to have someone from outside, who will be able to reach decisions without being under the shadow of suspicion, and whose decisions will not affect matters in which he has an interest. I hope the Minister will feel himself to be in a position either to accept these words or, in another place, to insert words which have the same intention.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. In an ordinary case, if you fail before one court you go to a higher court, and the higher court consists of members of the same profession as the lower court.

Mr. Bevan: These are employés.

Mr. Williams: I agree. But so are judges; they are employed by the State.

Mr. Bevan: Not by litigants.

Mr. Williams: The suggestion that these people will act improperly in reviewing the decision of one of them seems quite wrong. Purely from a practical point of view, because these are the only effective people, the Amendment does not seem to me a very effective proposal.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I wonder if I might deal with the next Amendment at the same time, because it relates to the same point. I can see that one wants some element of complete independence in the panel of referees. The House will recollect that we changed the Schedule to some extent on the Committee stage by making the appointment of that panel one by the Board of Trade. As the paragraph stands now, all or any of the members of the panel may be members of the boards, except for the independent persons. The independent members are the legal gentlemen. It may, on a strict legal reading of the words, include a number of other people, if the Board of Trade put them on. But if the Amendment were accepted, it probably would make it very difficult to put any of these persons on. In fact, I am not sure that that is not what the hon. Member wants. It struck my right hon. Friend and me that the panel which the Board of Trade is to constitute should have some of these members of the boards, and that it should have, as I say in my Amendment later, at least two persons who are entirely independent. Care would then be taken, as the paragraph itself says, to see that a referee should not deal with a case which had come up from a regional valuation board with which he was connected. I think our Amendment is the better for the purpose we have in mind. The hon. Gentleman is again, as he was on Committee stage, suspicious about a reference to a


member of the valuation board, even if it was a reference to something outside his own area, because of the effect it would have on valuations in another case by the board in which he was interested. I repudiate that, on behalf of a small, but very honourable, profession; and I would also point out, for what it is worth, that the general rules of valuation for this purpose are to be drawn up by the Central Valuation Board, and are afterwards, before they come into effect, to be approved by the Board of Trade. So, if there is any possibility of impropriety—which I do not admit—there is that check.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that his Amendment will meet the situation? It is not the panel that is going to arbitarate, but individuals selected from the panel. If you have a panel of 20 people, 18 of whom are mineral agents and two of whom are independent people, I do not see how that affects the situation. It is not the 20 people who are going to arbitrate, but one of them. If it is possible for one of the two independent persons to arbitrate, that shows that it is not necessary for the arbitrator to be a mineral agent. It really is very hard lines that I should always be attacked in this manner, for making charges against a profession, when I am simply protecting those who have to appear before the refrees. I am not making a charge of dishonesty against my neighbours because I lock my door, or against a secretary because I employ an auditor. All we are trying to do is to protect people from the possibility of temptation.

7.27 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: There is a good deal, I think, in this Amendment of ours, and very little in the one that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to put in its place. It is important that justice should not only be done, but should appear to be done. In former cases, where valuation has had to be made or references have had to be made, in matters of this type, where a surveyor has been appointed to the position of an official arbitrator, it has been made a condition that he should give up the whole of his private business during the time that he acts as an official arbitrator, not because he is suspected of being dishonest, but

because it is desirable that a person in that position should not have clients whose interests might be involved. We are primarily interested in this Clause because these referees will have to decide in the case of subsidiary coal hereditaments. In the case of subsidiary coal hereditaments, valuation is going to be made which will actually be a charge on the State, through the Commission. The lower the valuation, the less the charge will be; the higher the valuation, the greater the charge will be. It will obviously be in the interest of the mineral owners as a whole to get those hereditaments valued as high as they can be.
Is it not obvious that a person would be gravely embarrassed if he settled on a scale of valuation which was a low scale, when he came himself, on behalf of his employers, to put forward a valuation for that same type of hereditament? He would have prejudiced his own case. He is making a decision which can be quoted against him when he becomes an advocate. Surely, it is wrong that anybody should be put in that position, and wrong that the public should be given the impression that a person in that position is going to decide how much the State ought to pay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, as my hon. Friend has said, has completely given away his case, in his reference to his own suggested Amendment, because he says they want an element of complete independence on the panel of referees. What is the point of wanting an element of complete independence? The only answer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give is that it is better to have cases decided by someone who is completely independent. If that be so, and you are to choose a referee from a panel, must not everybody on the panel be completely independent? How can it be that in some cases it is desirable, as he says, to have complete independence but in another case it is not desirable to have complete independence? How does he differentiate? When he comes to look at the panel from which he is to choose a referee, he looks it up and down and says, "Here are two independent gentlemen and here are 10 who are not independent gentlemen. In this case, shall I choose an independent gentleman or a gentleman who is not independent?"
I should be very much obliged if either he or the Attorney-General would tell us


what criterion he is going to apply in the selection from a panel as to whether an independent or a not independent person is chosen as referee? The answer must be, if you believe, as he stated that he believed, that you want an element of complete independence upon the panel, that you must always choose the independent, and never choose the dependent referee. His offer and his acknowledgment that you must have an element of independence is tantamount to saying that he recognises that he must appoint an independent person to arbitrate in a case of this sort. If that be so, the only way that he can achieve that objective, is by having a panel of people who are all of them independent.
It is idle for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that there are very few mineral valuers, that they are a very honourable profession, as I am sure they are, and, that therefore he must include mineral valuers on this panel because nobody else would be competent to hear such a case. Then who are his two independent people going to be? Are they to be mineral valuers? What does "independent" mean? Of what are they going to be independent? I presume, independent of any private interest, so that they will not have any reservations as regards exercising their functions as arbitrators. If he can find two such people to put on the panel, why cannot he find 10? Does he really want more than two? There are only two official arbitrators in the country to deal with the whole of the valuations under the Assessment of Compensation Act.

The Attorney-General: There are more now.

Sir S. Cripps: There may have been more appointed recently, but for a long time the country was divided into North and South, and there were only two valuers who were independent people expressly under the Act, and had to be so, though they were valuers and surveyors. Why cannot we have in this matter the same privileged position? I do not mind whether a man is a mineral agent or not, provided he is independent. The people who are contemplated here, the mineral agents in the various regions, are of necessity not independent, because they are to carry on their ordinary business of hearing and arguing, and putting in recommendations for clients of all kinds. It is

more than human to expect such a man when he comes to sit as referee, and who knows that he has perhaps a similar claim himself coming forward in a month or two, in arriving at a decision, not to have at the back of his mind a sub-conscious bias in favour of the claimant in the case. It will mean that this panel of referees, unless the independent persons are always chosen, will be inevitably sub-consciously biased.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke about appealing from judges to judges. That has nothing on earth to do with it. If somebody suggested that an official referee in the courts should be appointed from among solicitors who maintain their clients after appointment—that is the analogy—one would say, "It is an outrageous suggestion that this man should still be carrying on his practice as a solicitor and also act as an official referee." No one for a moment would tolerate such a position. This is exactly the same thing. If a man, who is still going to represent his client's interests in this very subject matter as between the Commission and the claimant, is to be asked to give judgment, can it be suggested that people would accept that judgment as a fair judgment? They would not. That is the answer. I beg of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the sake of the proper administration of justice, which is what this is as between the Commission and the claimant, to see that this is an independent panel of referees, and that, as he acknowledges that the element of independence is essential, he will see that it is present in respect to every person upon the panel.

Amendment negatived.

7.37 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 62, line 2, after "but," to insert
shall include at least two persons who are not members of any of those boards, and.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to take advantage of this Amendment to make some reply to the cogent arguments addressed to the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)? This is really too serious a matter to be dismissed so lightly. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the two persons who are to be appointed will be the only persons who will be allowed to be


referees? Will they be adequate in number, and, if so, why did he resist the previous Amendment? We would really like to know. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that we have allowed the Bill a very good run this evening, and we would like to have some assurance that this very substantial point will be met. We ought not to have public money dealt with in this cavalier fashion. We must really have some guarantee that the arbitrators in these matters will not be interested in serving their employers by abstracting money for them out of the public purse.

7.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I did not mean to be discourteous, but I said what I wished to say on this point when dealing with the previous Amendment. But with the permission of the House I would add that the Amendment says:
two persons who are not members of any of those Boards.
It does not necessarily mean that they will be inexpert persons independent of the work of the valuation boards. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman does not overlook one aspect of this matter. He said, as he has said before, when speaking of the subsidiary hereditaments, that it will be in the interests of the agents acting for owners to force them up as high as possible because they have nothing to do with the global figure. I am not an expert in valuation work at all, but I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman fully appreciates the fact that, being subsidiary hereditaments, they really cannot be forced up very much. Their value very largely depends upon the value of the coal property. That is what I am advised by those who deal with these matters. The subsidiary minerals can be worked only in conjunction with coal, which is a large proportion of that with which we are dealing. If coal is of no value and is not likely to be worked at all, the other minerals, which can be worked only if coal is worked, obviously, cannot be forced up to any higher value.

Mr. Bevan: The subsidiary minerals are extremely important.

Captain Crookshank: That may be, but the valuation of minerals is a very different matter from anything else, and

the more I hear of it from those who are experts, the more complicated and unique it seems. I would warn the hon. and learned Gentleman not to stress too much the possibility of forcing up the prices of subsidiary hereditaments against the Commission or anybody else. The value of the subsidiary hereditaments has relation to the coal.

Sir S. Cripps: I would also warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have been in many compensation cases and valuations of all sorts and kinds, and anybody who has had experience knows the ingenuity of valuers. I have never found a valuer yet who cannot force up the value of anything in making a claim.

Captain Crookshank: Be the valuers ingenious or not, I would counter that by saying that I doubt whether there is anybody, whether valuers or anybody else, who, if they were appointed by the Minister to be members of the panel and were then asked to give a proper decision on a contested claim of valuation, would not do it honestly or properly to the best of their ability. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite saying that that is not so. What was the point of his talking about the ingenuity of valuers in the sentence in which he interrupted me, if it was not that he had something of the kind at the back of his mind? I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not yet satisfied. We have gone a considerable way since the Bill was introduced in trying to meet him and his friends on this point. We changed the selection of the panel from what it was when the Bill was introduced to that of the President of the Board of Trade, and since then we have made it quite clear that it shall not consist wholly of members of valuation boards but that it shall have at least two—it might be said that there might have been more—who have no connection with valuation boards at all.
I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) said, that this is a very small profession and that the number of people competent to do this kind of work is very small indeed. Again I observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with me, but if he made extensive inquiries in the country he would find and he can take it from me,


that the number of people who are competent technically and are available for this purpose is not any definite number. The provisions of the Schedule, as they will be if the Amendment is accepted, go a long way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite to get the right constitution. We believe that by what we have done we are well on the way to doing that, and that is why I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 63, line 15, after "subsisted," insert "and."—[The Attorney-General.]

7.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 63, line 17, to leave out from "consideration," to the end of line 23.
This Amendment proposes to delete paragraph 13 (c) of the Schedule. The paragraph dealt with the case of a freeholder working his own coal and provided that the valuation should be made on the basis of the lease which he would have from the Commission. Yesterday the House inserted in Clause 12 certain words which enables the Commission, in certain circumstances, to grant the person working his own coal a lease on less onerous terms. That alteration has made this paragraph inapposite as laying down the basis upon which the coal is to be worked. It is, therefore, proposed to delete it. It is unnecessary to put anything in its place, because the general provision of Clause 7 (4), providing that the unit shall be valued on its basis in the open market, gives sufficient guidance to the valuation tribunals as to the basis upon which to proceed.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 67, line 26, to leave out from "time," to "the," in line 28, and to insert "before or after the vesting date."
This Amendment relates to the provision in the Schedule under which payment on account may be made either before or after the vesting date. The Amendment is moved for the purpose of testing exactly what is meant by the way in which the opening words of paragraph 19 are drafted. That paragraph provides that at any time before the vesting date payment on account may be made,

but after the vesting date payment on account can only be made before the relevant certificates have become conclusive. As I understand it, at that time the claimant becomes entitled to payment, and there does not seem to be any reason for limiting the provision by saying that after the vesting date but before the certificate has become conclusive, no payment on account can be made.
If there is the possibility of an interval between the date on which the certificate becomes conclusive and the date when the claimant receives the amount to which he is entitled, I should like to know why it should be impossible for a payment on account to be made during that interval. If there is any possibility of that interval being of any length, it is clear that the power to make payment on account should not be taken from the Commission during the interval. Therefore, in order to carry out what we understand to be the position, namely, that the Commission is to have a discretion to make payment on account at any time before and after the vesting date until the full amount is paid, it would be much simpler if the Amendment were accepted and power were given to the Commission to make payment on account at any time before or after the vesting date.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, because I think the position is ambiguous. The only time when the power to make payment on account ceases is when the relevant certificates have become conclusive. In other words, during the period of doubt payment on account can be made, but when the period of doubt comes to an end the whole situation may be sterilised, because in paragraph 17 (2, a) it is provided that
the Court may by interim order direct the Commission to suspend the payment of compensation on the basis of the certificates sent.
Although these things can be done freely during the earlier part of the procedure, when we are getting nearer the conclusion the right to make these payments on account is apparently suspended. If we have misread the words, I hope we shall be told so, but if we have read them rightly, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

7.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend need have any anxiety on this point. The limitation which is in the Schedule as it now stands, that payment on account cannot be made after the relevant certificates have become conclusive, is due to the fact that when that occurs there is no question of payment on account, because the compensation is a debt due.

Mr. Williams: But will any sum be paid?

Captain Crookshank: It is a debt due and has been ascertained, and if it is not paid then the claimant can enforce payment by going to the Court.

Mr. Williams: If the Secretary for Mines will look at paragraph (a) he will see that the whole sum and not the part that may be paid on account may be sterilised. He will find that in line 31, on page 65. The whole sum may be sterilised at that stage, although it has been perfectly free before.

Captain Crookshank: I think the point is clear. If there is any doubt about paragraph (a), that is another matter. If the hon. Member still thinks that there is any shadow of doubt about it, we can look into it, but the point is that you cannot make payment on account when the compensation becomes a debt due.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I do not know why the Commission cannot make payment on account of a debt due. That beats me. I have heard of a great many people who make payment on account of debts due. What I want is that it shall be possible for the owners—I was about to say these wretched people—the expropriated owners to receive something on account right up to the time that they receive the full amount due to them. I should have thought that my Amendment would have enabled that to be done. Why the Commission is to be deprived of the right to make a payment on account because the sum has become a debt due, I cannot understand. I hope that although the Minister cannot accept the Amendment now, he will reconsider the matter and bring forward an Amendment in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 68, line 7, at the end, to insert:
and the said interest shall be deemed for all purposes, including the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, to be paid on each anniversary of the date of the payment on account that occurs before the vesting date and on the vesting date.
This Amendment relates to Income Tax. One assumes that the person who receives £100 on account is debited each year with £3, representing interest at three per cent. Suppose he has received interest for three years, then he will be debited as having received £109. In a recent decision in the courts it has been held that the mere debit of interest is not in itself regarded as payment for Income Tax purposes. The result of that decision is that, but for these words which we propose to insert, the persons who receive a payment on account and have been debited at three per cent. interest each year might not be in a position to have it taken into account in the ordinary way. Therefore, we suggest that the best course to adopt is to insert this Amendment to clarify the position.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 68, line 37, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 2, on page 69.
This paragraph is directed to a case where the coal passing to the Commission has been with other lands the subject of a mortgage. It provides that if everybody concerned agreed, the charge contained in the mortgage should be placed on the value of the land which did not vest in the Commission so as to leave the coal free of the mortgage and so simplify the splitting up of the compensation. As the provision is operative only if everybody agrees, and if everybody does not agree, then there would be no agreement, the House will welcome an Amendment which takes out an unnecessary provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 29, leave out from beginning to "Where," in line 31, and insert:
(v) After paragraph 21 the following paragraph shall be inserted, 21a."—[The Attorney-General.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE—(Lease Consolidation Schemes.)

7.55 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 76, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 16, and to insert:
1.—(1) A lease consolidation scheme, and the single lease to be granted pursuant thereto, shall be prepared by the Commission in agreement with the working lessee.
(2) The said lease may comprise, in addition to the coal and mines of coal in the colliery area, any other premises that are to vest in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act and are comprised in any of the subsisting working leases, and may, if the person competent to grant a lease thereof consents to the inclusion thereof but not otherwise, comprise also any premises that are so to vest but are not comprised in any of the subsisting working leases and any premises that are not so to vest.
(3) The said lease shall not (except with his consent) impose upon any person any liability not being a liability to which he would have been subject by virtue of a subsisting working lease, or render more onerous whether as regards extent duration terms conditions or otherwise, any liability to which any person would have been so subject.
This is rather a complicated Amendment. Schedule 5 deals with the lease consolidation scheme. This Amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 (1) and substitutes other words. It does not affect the Schedule very substantially but it repairs a technical omission in the earlier words by including in the premises which may be comprised in a lease, not only the coal but any other annexed rights, which under the Second Schedule would vest in the Commission when the vesting date comes. It also makes it possible to include other rights or properties which will not vest in the Commission, if all the parties concerned agree that it would be in the general convenience that they should be included.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 13, at the end, to add:
or deprive him of the benefit of any covenant, condition or provision of the subsisting working lease affecting or relating to any premises other than coal.
I welcome the Government's Amendment as far as it goes, but surely the

estate owner should not only be protected from any additional liability, but he should not be deprived of any benefits which he enjoys under the subsisting lease.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that my hon. Friend's Amendment is necessary, because, as I have explained, premises other than those that are to vest in the Commission can, under the Amendment which the Government have moved, only be included with the consent of the persons concerned. Therefore, it would be impossible, it would be ultra vires for the Commission to include in any lease coal free from servitudes or covenants which were in the hands of third parties and which the Commission would have no power to affect. I think the Amendment to the Amendment is unnecessary, but if the hon. Member is not satisfied, I will look into it again.

Mr. Keeling: With the assurance given by the Attorney-General I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

8.0. p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 76, line 18, to leave out "by the person entitled to," and to insert:
being premises comprised in any of the subsisting working leases, out of.
This and the next Amendment are drafting. The Schedule as drafted refers to the person entitled to the freehold reversion as a person being a party to the lease. There are certain cases in which that does not work because a person entitled to the freehold reversion is not a proper party to the lease, and the best example of this is the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 76, line 2i, leave out "by the person entitled to," and insert "out of."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 76, line 28, to leave out "determine," and to insert:
include in the single lease be granted pursuant thereto any premises that are comprised in a subsisting working lease being.


This Amendment is designed to make it clear that you cannot have a consolidation scheme except where the lessors are the persons who have rights to be vested in the mines. There are certain cases where directions are given in Clause 5 where you have successive leases which may leave the lessor with the retaining lease. The words are to make less obscure a position which was originally obscure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 76, line 28, after "interests," insert "in those premises."—[The Attorney-General.]

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 and 21 Geo. 5 c. 34, ss. 5 and 8.)

8.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 83, line 17, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 29, and to insert:
(3B) Upon the occasion of the appointment of a member of a committee of investigation as a representative of any interest, the Board shall, after consultation with such bodies as appear to them to represent that interest, appoint two persons, one of whom shall, in the event of that member being unable to act on the investigation of any complaint, be selected in such manner as the Board may direct to act as the member of the committee representative of that interest and a person so selected for the investigation of any complaint shall, in relation to that investigation, be deemed to be the member of the committee representative of that interest, and references in this Section to 'the members' shall be construed accordingly.
There is a second Amendment, in line 31, to leave out from "investigation" to "Any," in line 34, which must be taken in conjunction with this Amendment. These two Amendments arise out of the discussion in the Committee of the powers proposed to be given to the chairman to the effect that his view should prevail in the committee of investigation. It was thought by hon. Members in various parts of the House that it was a most deplorable thing to suggest, although it is not an unknown provision even in mining circles. We have considered the position further and we recognise that it is now a rather difficult proposal to justify, seeing that there is appeal machinery. When it was originally suggested, and indeed agreed upon by all parties concerned, there was no suggestion of any appeal machinery from the decision of the committee. We were told that what was vital

was speed and finality in the decisions of the committee. After that the opinion was reached that some appeal machinery would be more in line with present legislation, and that has been provided, and as speed and finality are not so necessary now we feel that the chairman of the committee need not have these great powers.
The quorum originally was three, with the chairman having a casting vote. In order that there shall be every consideration for the different interests involved who sit on committees of investigation, in the proportion half of coal interests and half representing the consumers, it seems to us that the best plan is to have a quorum of four with the chairman to have a casting vote. Hon. Members can realise what that involves. It means that if there are four persons present, and the chairman, and three take one view against the chairman, then his views cannot prevail. Of course the three would be made up two of one interest and one of the opposing interest, and, therefore, it would obviously be wrong for the chairman's view to prevail in cases of that kind. The ordinary procedure of giving him a casting vote will normally allow the committee to function by a majority. It seems that the best way to get what we want is to raise the quorum to four.
The House will recognise that we are dealing with people who are giving their services in this matter. They are not paid officials or servants of the State, and to collect four people at short notice is not always easy. Of course, the chairman has always to be present and we have made provision for a panel of chairmen, so that that part of the committee will always function quickly. We have also made provision for substitute members, otherwise you will be driving these voluntary workers rather hard, particularly as many of those who will represent the coalowners and the miners on the committees are officials in their districts or on the national Executive, and consequently have a great deal of other work to do. Therefore we suggest that there should be two substitute members for each member of the committee, and in that way we do not think there will be any diculty in getting the committee together quickly and rapidly. Of course, the substitute members would be nominated by exactly the same interests as now nominate the members of the committees.


The selection as between original members and th substitute members would be governed by rules in the way the Board of Trade may direct. The second Amendment merely sweeps away the provision in the Schedule which gave the chairman powers to which exception was taken. We suggest that in order to make the new plan work quickly the quorum should be four, and regulated in accordance with directions issued by the Board of Trade under the 1930 Act. Therefore, if the Amendment is adopted directions with regard to altering the quorum will be given as soon as the Bill becomes law. I hope the House will accept the proposal as being an answer to the criticisms made at an earlier stage.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I rise only to say that we think the Government have made an attempt to meet the representations which were made in Committee. We are anxious that the committees of investigation should function properly and thoroughly, and that they should not break down for want of a proper attendance on the part of members. We appreciate the difficulty of the Government in finding a means of escape from the difficulties which presented themselves, but, on the whole, this is a satisfactory method of dealing with the matter.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I rise to oppose the second of the Amendments referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I confess that I do not feel in any way convinced by the arguments he has adduced for the alteration he proposes to make in this Schedule. I cannot accept the view that the creation of the proposed appeal tribunal renders unnecessary the special powers which the Schedule gives to the chairman. Those who were in the House when this point was considered on the Committee stage will remember that the Secretary for Mines adduced very strong arguments for giving the chairman power to take the decision when the other members of the committee were divided. He told us at the same time that the idea was not novel in the coal industry, in that its principle was applicable in the case of the selling schemes and of the conciliation boards, and his argument was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who pointed out that owing to the conflict of opinion which

might exist between the two members of the committee representative of the consumers' interests, it might be very difficult to get a decision in any circumstances in favour of the complainant.
I do not see that the creation of the appeal tribunal alters in any way the cogency of the arguments which were then put forward, and I feel very much that the fact that the decisions of the committees of investigation will be able to be brought before the appeal tribunal should remove the misgivings which were expressed by those hon. Members on both sides of the House when the Bill was in Committee, who thought the chairman of the committee would have too much power. It seems to me that if this Amendment is accepted, it will mean in effect that this safeguard to the consumer will function only if the representatives of the consumers are in agreement. If they are not in agreement—and owing to the conflict of interests they will very often not be in agreement—then the decision must inevitably go against the complainant who has brought his case to the committee, and that means that the decision will be based, not on the merits of the case, as it should be, but on the sectional interests of the members. The result of that, as far as I can see, will be to reduce the proceedings of the committee to something approaching a farce, and the unfortunate complainant, who no doubt would have been put to great trouble and expense in preparing his case and bringing it before the committee will find that he has in fact only one degree of jurisdiction, and that the court of appeal.
Having regard to the fact that the committee is to be composed of an independent chairman, who is a qualified lawyer, and of four lay representatives, two of whom represent coal interests and two of them consumers' interests, and having regard also to the fact that the committees are in future to have something more than mere powers of investigation and are to exercise judicial functions, it seems to me that those lay members of the committee should be regarded as assessors and not as judges, and that if they are divided in their opinions, three to one, the chairman ought to take the decision. That decision may be right or it may be wrong, but at any rate it will be a decision which has been judicially arrived at—a disinterested decision. If it is appealed against and goes to the appeal tribunal, that


tribunal will at least have a judgment to consider which they know to be unbiased. On the other hand, if the decision is merely a majority decision, come to without any regard to the merits, the judgment which the appeal tribunal will have to consider will be simply worthless.
Those of us who from the very beginning, ever since this Bill appeared, have been concerned with the interests of the coal consumers are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines for strengthening the safeguards which are designed to protect the consumer against exploitation, but even now we do not regard these safeguards as adequate, and we do not want to see them whittled down. I, for one, am very strongly opposed to the alteration in the Schedule which is now proposed, because I think it will take away one degree of jurisdiction in a system which even now gives very scant protection to the consumer. On these grounds, I think the Amendment ought to be opposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 31, leave out from "investigation," to "Any," in line 34.—[Captain Crook-shank.]

8.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 85, line 29, at the end, to insert:
7. At the end of the said Section five the following Sub-section shall be inserted:
'(11) Any appointment to be made by the Board of Trade under this Section of a person who is thereby required to be a member of the legal profession shall be made after consultation with the Lord Chancellor.'
There are two or three Amendments on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) dealing with the point that before a chairman is appointed to these committees, the Lord Chancellor should be consulted. This Amendment is designed to do that, but it is in a more correct form than his Amendment, and I move it with the greater pleasure because consultation with the Lord Chancellor on a matter of this kind is obviously what a common sense person would do. I say that advisedly, because I did it myself.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I must oppose this Amendment. We have to be very watchful and very careful in selecting legal gentlemen, but to consult a legal man, and such a legal man as the Lord Chancellor, about the legal man whom you are going to select is too dangerous. I want to put this very seriously. I do not know the present Lord Chancellor, but I have known Lord Chancellors who were exceptionally biased and very violent in their politics, and it is an absolute certainty that if a board went to consult such a Chancellor, you could tell beforehand the particular type of legal man that he would choose.

Mr. Quibell: A safe Tory.

Mr. Gallacher: Yes, a safe Tory. The Lord Chancellor is a political figurehead—and some of them have been awful figureheads—and that he should be brought into consultation, in connection with the appointment of one who ought to be absolutely unbiased, is wrong. With all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been leading the Opposition during this Debate, I do not think any hon. Member on this side has any confidence in legal gentlemen, and the higher they are placed the less confidence we have in them. I oppose this Amendment. It should be possible, out of the wide range of legal men available, for those who are responsible to make a suitable appointment, and no reason of any kind can be advanced for having consultation with the Lord Chancellor, unless it is desired to fill all these posts with nice respectable Tory lawyers. That would be most undesirable from the point of view of obtaining unbiased judgments.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to printed. [Bill 118.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eight o'Clock.